Audio: CIA Blinks! (Jim Fetzer Show)

Ormond · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:02 am Post subject:

Great reference, Jerry. From that page I will add,

Hocus Locus · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject:

[Dynamic Duo: 15 March 2007 with Jim Fetzer, Fintan Dunne]
<<<QUOTE<<<

JIM: This is Jim Fetzer your host on The Dynamic Duo with Kevin Barrett, where you can catch Kevin here on Mondays and Fridays, I'm here on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Today we continue our conversation with Fintan Dunne from Ireland, who's an on-line journalist, a geopolitical analyst, and the editor if the Internet radio show breakfornews Fintan has [breakfornews.com], two other on-line web sites, fintandunne.com and treeincarnation.com.

Yesterday we were going to continue our conversation about misinformation and disinformation in the 9/11 research community but we had technical problems making contact with Fintan -- so I invited him back today and I'm very pleased to welcome him back. Fintan, welcome back to the Dynamic Duo.

FINTAN: How are you doing Jim, and I hope you're hearing me loud and clear. How am I coming over?

JIM: You know, it's a nice day to have you back to talk about these things because we have been the recipients of this 'reported confession' from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Everything that's happened in the last 20 years, everything bad, it's quite a ridiculous situation before this 'Combatant Status Review Tribunal', which actually has the narrow task of determining whether he was properly designated as an 'enemy combatant'.

Nevertheless they've released a transcript in which he confessed to some 30 different kinds of plots, and says he that was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans... he says "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z"... what's your take on this Fintan?

FINTAN: One part of that is ludicrously funny, and only to my knowledge The Independent in the United Kingdom reported that properly, by saying that "the US claims"... and they used the phrase "alleged confession"... because of course we have no verification of those, only the word of the US military who are in control of that situation.

The other side of it is not funny at all, and I regard that a 'bloodstained' alleged confession, because it's stained with the blood of the many individuals who are incarcerated in ruthless denial of their civil liberties, and what is clearly treatment that violates the Geneva Convention. And violates all human rights principles. So, it's both ludicrous and tragic Jim.

JIM: Ridiculous in fact. He even said, and it was reported in the article in the New York Times about this, that while he had previously made confessions under torture, that he would now deny -- he says that what he was saying today, though he was not speaking under oath, because his beliefs prohibited it -- what he was saying was true. And even the 9/11 Commission said he was noted for his extravagant ambitions, using his initials, described his vision as a "theater, a spectacle of destruction with 'KSM' as self-cast star, the 'super terrorist'. Even the 9/11 Commission wasn't willing to take anything he had to say at face value. Of course it's quite an absurd confession on its face.

A friend of mine at noon, with whom I had lunch -- just happened to type out his 'top ten' reasons for not believing the confession -- including that he hasn't explained how he was able to get explosives into Building Seven, how he was able to divert the US military away from the Pentagon, that he's been locked up for years without basic Constitutional rights, all we know about him is from a press release which is not itself a form of evidence. Osama of course was alleged to have claimed to have planned it, but you and I know he denied it initially -- and if he denied it, then his denial was legitimate -- which certainly appears to be the case.

It wouldn't appear that what Mohammed is saying could possibly be true. He's confessed to at least four sensational terrorist attacks: the '93 bombing, the 9/11, the shoe bomber, and even the beheading of Daniel Pearl. So maybe if we got this guy, we can just stop the war on terrorism after all!

At the behest of Pakistani general Mahmoud Ahmed who wired $100,000 to the cocaine pork-chop lap-dancing Islamic fundamentalist terrorist Mohammad Atta on September 6, 2001... that was quite a nice case where the general was having breakfast in Washington DC with Porter Gross and the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee when these events went down.

Here's one ['top ten' reason] he added that I thought was rather amusing -- that Mohammed never said he said 'pull it' in his confession. It's really quite ridiculous.

FINTAN: Yeah, and even that alleged $100,000 transfer I'm deeply suspicious of -- because it does of course point us in the direction of the 'approved patsies', establishes to those of us who are awake, a kind of causal evidence chain -- but at the same time, it is in the end only pointing us towards the pre-arranged patsies who supposedly carried out the attack. So I don't really believe anything that comes out of the US Administration or the Pentagon.

I think that they're continually massaging events for propaganda, and for diversionary purposes, Jim. To 'throw us off' the scent. And to spin things. Of all of their pronouncements...

JIM: They're geniuses at public relations and the politics of distraction -- Fintan, that's absolutely right. This is Karl Rove's area of specialization, so I couldn't agree more. We were just beginning to talk about your take on the role of disinformation in the research community, and I really want to give you ample opportunity to lay out your take, because it seems to me you have a very distinctive point of view.

FINTAN: We've covered one of the 'legs' of the stool I've got here, it's a five-legged stool... and I'd like to lay out the basis of this information analysis so we can understand where it's coming from, and then apply that to the 9/11 issue. Across the political manipulation of free elections, across this spin-meistering that Karl Rove is using, 'total news management', across the use of psychological warfare, across 'fake politics' and globalization, and the 'globalization agenda'. And if we examine each of those areas, we see them coming together, and giving us an understanding of where we've got to in these totally media mis-led days -- where information warfare is everything, and disinformation is all over the 9/11 issue.

JIM: Okay, we have talked about globalization during our first interview, perhaps enough has been said for the moment, that we know in your view, that is the ultimate goal here... where the G8 and the World Trade Organization really create a scenario under which corporations are ruling the world, but in order to get there lots of things have to happen, and it looks -- I take it -- in your view 9/11 was a 'key' event in order to manipulate the situation; in order to lead the world, but especially the United States in that direction.

FINTAN: Yes, and one of the key pieces of disinformation within the 9/11 issue is that it's designed to smear the blame across the neocons, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, and portray this as some kind of grand military neocon adventure which was engineered into place by the 9/11 event.

Whereas in fact, it's much deeper than that. In fact, this is designed to be suspected by people internationally, that those were the people behind it. when there's a much broader agenda which has to do with demonizing the US government, breaking the confidence of the people of the United States in their own government and system of government. And then 'sheparding them' in the direction of good-cop bad-cop -- where the good cop is going to be Hillary Clinton, perhaps with Barack Obama as vice presidential candidate -- ushering us into this new era of globalization.

So there are patsies all over the place on this one Jim, and the neocons are some of the biggest patsies going. So 'key' disinformation of the 9/11 has just been to smear them---

JIM: ---in the direction of believing that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Donald [?] and Paul Wolfowitz and General Richard Meyer and Condeleeza Rice and Rudy Giuliani and Larry Silverstein were the principals here -- with the possibility of out-sourcing perhaps the destruction of the World Trade Center to some Israeli operatives... that's the way it's shaped up in terms of my own research, so I'm very interested in learning why you think that might be a superficial account -- or only barely skimming the surface.

We'll be right back with my special guest, Fintan Dunne from Ireland. This is Jim Fetzer your host on the Dynamic Duo.

[BREAK]

JIM: We're discussing information, misinformation and disinformation in relation to the 9/11 research community, and Fintan, before we go too far into your analysis of the background and the motives and the players behind the scenes... perhaps you could give us a sketch of what you take to be the case, as to the events that transpired on 9/11. What actually happened there?

FINTAN: I'm not really prepared to do that, you know. I'd have to sit down and work through that Jim.

JIM: What I meant was just a broad scale -- would you be inclined to agree with me that for example, that the twin towers were blown up by a very sophisticated technique, probably using unconventional methods -- more or less from the top down, their destruction was faster than free-fall would have been possible -- that Building Seven was a separate event, probably with conventional explosives... that the massiveness of the destruction of the World Trade Center pretty much precludes explaining what happened there on the basis of conventional demolition of the Twin Towers by itself.

In the Pentagon it's pretty obvious that a Boeing 757 didn't hit the building -- it may have been a some combination of a smaller plane and a missile or two fired into the building. And in Shanksville things are pretty mysterious because looks more like it was created by a bulldozer digging a ditch, filling it with trash and blowing it up, than it does that any plane crashed there. In fact, the debris field and so forth might be consistent with a plane being shot down, since it's distributed over something like eight square miles, so the possibility that that flight actually landed at the Cleveland Airport... a lot of this is shrouded in mist but it's pretty obvious that what the government has told us in every major respect about 9/11 is false.

FINTAN: Well I agree with you on that point, in terms of the falseness of the official story... but I really am not prepared tonight to go into details on that, that's something we're still investigating in the 9/11 3i investigation on breakfornews.com. And we haven't reached firm conclusions there about any of the events -- we're certainly examining the evidence...

JIM: Well fine, I just wanted to know where we stood, vis-à-vis the conclusions toward which I and members of Scholars have been driven, which are summarized at Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the 911scholars.org website.

FINTAN: Okay. Just in laying out the whole context in which we're operating, I'd like to examine a number of key areas -- and I think this will illuminate it for us, and we'll see then the nature of disinformation -- on how you apply it, how you use it.

And the first area is the trend towards the political manipulation of free elections. This is something we've seen abroad Jim, I'm sure people are very familiar with the Orange Revolution which took place in the Ukraine. But in fact there have been 'color-coded' revolutions all across Eastern Europe -- including Kirgizstan and Georgia. And the organizations active in those areas are an outreach from the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. I'm talking about the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs... the National Endowment for Democracy... the International Republican Institute... and George Soros' Open Society Institute.

If you examine the functions of those organizations -- they're not helping to spread democracy, -- they're helping to spread a particular kind of democracy that suits Western corporate interests. That's particularly evident in Eastern Europe, but these same groups are active also in Iraq. And their activities essentially are the front end of covert activities which used to be entirely the ambit of the CIA. In the past, the CIA used to manipulate the democratic process in foreign countries -- and do so covertly. But of course that came to light in the 1970s to a great extent... and so what's happened now is you have these 'front' organizations which manipulate the democratic process, and behind the scenes you have the CIA doing the usual 'dirty tricks' operations.

The danger is, and the problem we have is, that they have now turned those techniques and tactics, of manipulating foreign democratic processes, onto the scene -- in particular the United States, United Kingdom and Australia -- the heart of the Anglo-American-Australian alliance behind the War on Terror. And they're using the same tactics to manipulate the electoral processes at home!

And they've gotten pretty good at this. They know how to 'fire up' political activists. Suppose they need an issue -- to get some guy who's a leader in a foreign country unpopular. They manufacture an issue. They can create groups on the ground who will go out and protest. They create websites, they build up a head of steam -- they get everybody out on the streets with orange flags -- or blue flags, or red flags, and before you know it you have a so-called popular revolution. They're really good at this... and that is the context in the United States in particular against which we have to judge this information -- is that it's happening such that political activists on both sides of the Democratic/Republican divide in the United States can be manipulated, and are being manipulated behind the scenes. So that as you like, is one 'key leg' I've got of this stool of disinformation.

JIM: Well there's certainly a growing awareness in the United States... that the use of electronic voting machines for example, by corporations that have close ties to the Bush Administration has been benefiting the Republican Party by something like a 5 percent slant in those cases... when there's no paper trail. There's quite a lot about this and their role in the elections in 2002, 2004 -- I mean in Georgia, when Max Cleveland lost his Senate seat the situation was ridiculous -- he went into election day with something like a 14% lead and wound up losing nevertheless, by voting machines that were displaying patterns of report that were consistent with manipulation.

Florida of course was a nice example of theft of an election where the Supreme Court itself intervened... the blackest mark in the history of the Court when it didn't allow the State of Florida to proceed with its own processes of evaluating the votes, and determining its own electors in order to have a legitimate outcome -- but I wonder, apart from that -- what precisely what are you suggesting?

I agree with the pattern you're talking about for fomenting discontent, having so-called 'uprisings', popular uprisings and so forth -- which was attempted unsuccessfully against Hugo Chavez... a couple of times here. He's now been elected three times by a very large margin to be the leader of Venezuela. I'm just wondering what we should look for, Fintan, as signs of this kind of manipulation of our representatives?

FINTAN: You touched on one issue there, which is widely discussed in the alternative media at least -- manipulation of the electoral system by interfering with voting machines and having insecure voting machines, et cetera --

JIM: Hold that thought. We'll be right back with my special guest, Fintan Dunne from Ireland, this is Jim Fetzer your host on the Dynamic Duo.

[BREAK]

JIM: We're discussing disinformation in relation to 9/11 research, and related aspects. What's really going on, the underlying significance of the events of 9/11, with Fintan Dunne from Ireland. Fintan, I'd like you to pick up where we left off for the break.

FINTAN: We see there that the first leg of that stool is political manipulation of free elections and we're already talking about the subversion of democracy -- because you're not supposed to be doing that. And an example of how that is disinformation is the 'stolen election issue' -- in which we think we're on to something that tells us something about what's going on -- is in fact simply being used to drive potential Democratic voters into the hands of the Democratic party, by reminding them that hey, your election got stolen before, don't let it happen again! Get out and vote for Hillary next time in '08.

So the second leg of the stool then is the emergence of this whole era of spin-meistering, a [?] type era, it's typified by being able to spin the news cycle to a particular political advantage. And I think they've developed that forward to the point now that you don't just try to spin on a day-to-day basis, you're spinning to a 'news agenda', something I call total news management.

So what comes out of the major media -- and if you get the major media on board maybe you're talking about the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times -- and you've really got it all in the bag. What happens is, they're generating so-called 'news' which as actually custom designed by operators behind the scenes. Who are making sure that instead of the danger of us talking about real issues that we care about, they will feed us a relentless tide of prepared news items. So that's a very important skill that they have, which they add to this other skill of the manipulation of political activists, including 9/11 activists.

Then the third leg of the stool is psychological warfare, and the revolution in military affairs, which really is a total re-think of military affairs -- by the military themselves -- and indeed, by the people who manipulate the political process in the US and 9/11. So that they're oriented towards 'information warfare' all the time. They're focusing on that, and that's their key paradigm all the time, is the psychological effect they're having on the 'target' audience.

And once again, these were skills developed for deployment abroad which have been turned on the people of the United States themselves.

When you take those three legs together, you end up with a fourth one. You end up with the potential of adding this political manipulation, total news management, and psychological warfare control -- to create fake politics.

Completely, totally fake politics, where you have at Republican and Democratic senior levels, who are working hand in hand, and they're simply batting back and forward the electors between the two parties, alternating over long cycles of perhaps 8-10, 12 years, between the two parties, and that's totally engineered. And all of the politics is totally fake!

And I would include in that as a classic example of that, "the Plame Affair', which I see as a totally fake, contrived scandal. One designed to fill the news pages with -- well, something 'fake' -- because they're in control of that. And my illustration of how 'in control' of that they are, is just take a look at some of the players -- take a look at, say Patrick Fitzgerald. He played a role in the prosecutions in relation to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. He prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows up again relation to the 'Plamegate' affair.

Another guy who shows up is a judge looking after the case, Reggie Walton. He was appointed by Reagan and by George Bush Sr. Curiously, that same judge also shows up in a 9/11 related case, which is the Sibel Edmonds case, he was the one overseeing the right of the government to 'gag' Sibel Edmonds in that case. And there are other people who seem to show up in relation to this, and who seem to keep coming back into the same story. We've got for example, that same Judge Reggie Walton showing up as the presiding judge in the Hatfield case -- on the anthrax issue.

So I'm suggesting that we've got a number of key players... here's somebody else who shows up in this -- Mark Zaid, who is a lawyer representing Sibel Edmonds. He also shows up in the Tony Schaffer case, in relation to the alleged travails of Mohammad Atta.

So I'm pointing to a short list of 'key' characters who are showing up in a number of 'key' cases. And I'm saying that's happening because they are safe hands in which the establishment places these issues, knowing that they're safe. Knowing that the individuals who are prosecuting or judging those cases will not take the case anywhere they don't want it taken. And so they can have a totally fake story. So those are the key tactics which can be applied in order to create fake stories around the 9/11 issue. Based on the skills they have built up in creating a completely 'fake' political structure. And that's the background, Jim.

JIM: That's quite fascinating Fintan -- of course, some five corporations now control 90% of the news... a lot of us are convinced that talk radio and the Internet are the only last bastions of free speech and free enquiry left in the United States. But certainly the sketch you're portraying sounds very plausible. Where would you carry us from there?

FINTAN: While we're on it let's talk about the Internet, because these guys saw the Internet coming, too. They knew that the Internet was going to be a threat... so they have acted to minimize the potential threat of the Internet -- and it's not that difficult to do.

I know we have a lot of freedom on the Internet, but by the same token, a relatively small investment was all that was required, in media terms, for them to control the key traffic points on the Internet. Of course the mainstream media are heavily on the Internet as well. But I think they have had a long-term campaign -- for example, let's look at the Chinese. The Chinese, we know, have something on the order of 30,000 Internet 'police', who monitor the Internet to see what's going on.

I'm not suggesting perhaps the Western intelligence agencies are not quite so shy either... it's just they do it behind the scenes -- they do it not so much by controlling what you say -- as by pumping money into front-organizations which populate the Internet and make sure that, at least in the high traffic zones, they've got it covered.

And I think the implications of that for the 9/11 issue are that, they knew the 9/11 issue was going to come at them on the Internet too, and they made sure to be well in place years beforehand with 'assets' on the Internet who would control the debate. And as soon as 9/11 happened, an 'action plan' kicked into gear to divert us in key ways... and that's something I'd like to get into as we go along and look at the key diversion tactics, which they then applied on the Internet. To throw us off the scent.

JIM: I think that's appropriate, and right where we want to go. Because you know, it's identifying those sources and individuals who appear, in your view, to be 'steering' the discussion and debate about 9/11, that may be the key to understanding what's going on. If your premises are correct. So, take us there.

FINTAN: Everybody has a point of view on who might be steering people right or wrong. And it's right that we should have a debate on that issue... what I'd like to do in the first instance is at least establish the trend, the kinds of tricks being pulled, and let the people make their own judgment. I think one of the first things was to point us in the wrong direction -- to make sure that we did not focus on the 'globalization agenda' of the 9/11 attacks -- and instead were focused on the American military and neocons as the prime progenitors of it.

JIM: I will be right back with my special guest Fintan Dunne, this is Jim Fetzer your host on the Dynamic Duo.

[BREAK]

JIM: Today my special guest is Fintan Dunne and we're talking about the five legs of his psychological war paradigm... Fintan why don't you reiterate those five legs and then continue discussing the leg you're pursuing now.

FINTAN: Well really it all comes together. Here we are: the 9/11 event arrives and we are in deep trouble -- because they have got political manipulation, so they are well-versed in how to 'push us around' like sheep, they are versed in spinning and 'total news management' so they can hit us with a wall of pre-prepared news, and they understand the value of psychological warfare techniques in terms of how they control us and manipulate us... and they have a 'fake political system' where the top levels of both Republican and Democratic parties are fully on board... and they have a globalization agenda running -- which they are carefully concealing, in terms of portraying the United States as a 'bad guy' internationally.

And we saw that played out in the United Nations, et cetera, Where the other countries such as France and Russia, even Germany to an extent -- put up what seemed like spirited defense of Iraq's right to self-determination. But when it came down to it they signed with the rest of the 'G8' at the Dayton, Ohio G8 meeting.

So we really didn't have a chance in many ways... and the tactics they used are the first tactics I identified that they used against us, psychological warfare in terms of 'fear'. Basically they psyched us out -- the idea was to get us thinking emotionally rather than logically.

When you think logically you're going to arrive at good conclusions, whereas when you're reacting emotionally you're not. So they 'pushed our buttons' in order to get us reacting emotionally... and one of the techniques used there was the creation of Abu Ghraib prison, that scandal of prisoner mistreatment... designed to paint the US in a bad light internationally... but at the same time acting as a sort of 'fear agenda' to say, just like down in Gitmo: "You cross us... you're going to wind up in some wire cage where we'll ruthlessly abuse you." So that was the 'fear' agenda -- there are a lot of other fear agendas too, running around: the idea that they're going to declare martial law...

None of that happened of course, but back at the time it got everybody reacting emotionally. And when they presented us with a cast of cardboard 'cut-out' bad-guy characters -- quintessentially Bernard Kerik, I mean, what a low-life! These were the guys they put up there, [Michael] Chertoff, another low-life, Rumsfeld, Cheney -- these were people who are 'easily despicable', and they played upon that in order to sucker us into getting angry against certain individuals, who are only the front men. And missing the bigger picture. The next thing they did, of course, was---

JIM: Fintan, for clarification: when you're talking about 'they' we may need a little more commentary there. I know ultimately you think G8 and the bankers and so forth, and the big corporations are responsible... but is there an intermediate entity? Something like the Council on Foreign Relations, or some comparable entity that you would attribute with the role of planning these things out... and casting roles for these different characters to play?

FINTAN: A central role has got to be played by some elements who are either in, or have left, U.S. intelligence. There's no doubt about that. But I wouldn't see the operational control of that level of the 'script' as coming out of what you'd practically define as the CIA.

Even though I call this the 'CIA Fakes', and you can Google that term and find the article... that's just a shorthand. I believe that many of the key players at the operational level are extra-governmental, but would have a track record within organizations such as the US and British intelligence services. However, if you like, certain objectives are desired by the international corporate elite. And certain other people make certain those objectives are met. And nobody likes to go home and kiss their daughter good night and tuck them in, really wants to know the details. And they don't have to -- because the details are handled by the guys who really don't mind getting their hands dirty with that kind of work.

JIM: During the second hour let's come back to the 'CIA Fakes' because your "rogues' gallery" is quite an impressive list, some of these people I know personally, and I have questions about some of those that you're identifying in that way. Let's continue now with the broader picture of the five legs.

FINTAN: A key tactic then is getting us reacting emotionally and pointing us in the wrong direction, towards the cardboard cut-out characters. The bad guys.

Then, divide and conquer. Split the movement up at all, at every opportunity, and at each opportunity, into 'MIHOP' and into 'LIHOP', into every way -- into 'the Jews did it' and 'the Jews didn't do it', and any other way you can cut the movement up, it all helps.

Another key objective of the disinformation is, contaminate the evidence. Get us to take on board evidence that is flimsy, or evidence that is totally fake. And in that I would include the insertion of false evidence. This is something that many 9/11 activists have missed out on. That it's not a question of, that you might 'spot' things that happened on 9/11, in which you're getting on to something they didn't want you to find out. It's more a question ambiguous material is deliberately inserted into it. In order to throw you off the track. In order to feed you a red herring which takes you down a route that leads you nowhere. That's also tied to a military objective which is, to waste your time. Simply waste your time, to get you to spend time, energy and interest on so-called 'evidence' which actually leads nowhere.

JIM: Do you have some specific examples you'd like to offer, of those techniques?

FINTAN: The classic example of the time-waste, is everything that happened down in Florida, which Dan Hopsicker reported that Amanda Keller was saying. And Amanda Keller said she had a relationship with Mohammad Atta. Dan Hopsicker reported extensively on this... and then what we have had happen subsequently -- after pages and pages and pages and pages of stuff about Amanda Keller and how she was painting a picture of Mohammad Atta that was completely different than the government's story etc. etc. --- it is quietly announced in the Florida press that Amanda Keller now says that it was a different Mohammad... and that she's now moving away somewhere else.

She's gonna get married, which means she's going to change her name... which means if we follow that trail some time in the future, all we're looking for is 'Amanda something' somewhere in America, who at one stage told Dan Hopsicker that Mohammad Atta was actually on cocaine. We have an entire episode down there focused on Florida, of course it's where they wanted us to focus, which is where they said the patsies had planned the attack. Which turned into total vapor as our key witness 'booked' and left town saying -- by the way, it was a different Mohammad.

Now that's a classic example to me of wasting our time... and I was suspicious of Amanda Keller way back, I wrote about those suspicions -- and when she came out in the Florida press and announced that she was backing off the story, it confirmed my suspicions that it was a complete waste of our time. Nothing more, nothing less...

The unfortunate thing is that it was corroborated to a degree by someone I referred to earlier, Sibel Edmonds. Who is 'gagged' by the US government so she cannot actually say anything, but nevertheless spins a lot if innuendo left, right and center -- and she was seeming to substantiate elements of what Dan Hopsicker had been finding out... about drug connections linked to the 9/11 issue. I see that as another time-waste and as I said earlier, Sibel Edmonds, her case is overseen by the same judge who was looking over the Hatfield case, same judge looking over the recent 'Plamegate' case involving Patrick Fitzgerald. So there's another example of time-wasting.

And that has a big impact on us because if you examine popular forums like Democratic Underground, you will find literally thousands of pages devoted to the issue of Amanda Keller, what she was saying about Mohammad Atta, Sibel Edmonds and what she was saying, that kind of stuff literally wastes our time. So, there's some practical examples there. But a whole range of tactics waste our time -- I'd like to return to this one again -- contaminate the evidence pool by inserting what look like 'tasty morsels' of evidence... that includes for example the 'pod' underneath the plane---

JIM: Hold that thought Fintan. We'll be right back, this is Jim Fetzer your host on the Dynamic Duo with my special guest Fintan Dunne. Stand by.

[BREAK]

JIM: Fintan, the example you're using with the 'pods' is one that might be worth our discussing for a few minutes, because I think you can only offer it as an example of distraction if you're convinced in fact that it's a phony issue. I was in Chandler, Arizona with Dave von Kleist and watched a presentation he made of parts of a new video, where he was showing four different frames of the plane just before it hit the building from different perspectives, we talked a bit about the pods, I'm not convinced they aren't bona fide features of those aircraft.

Colonel George Nelson, with whom I made a presentation in front of the Alexandria Courthouse last April about the trial of Moussaoui, said to me those were non-standard features of the aircraft -- and because a civilian commercial airliner has to have a formal certification for any non-standard features he was convinced these were not the original aircraft. Flight 175 and Flight 11, that they were purported to be... so I considered the possibility, this thing called a 'flight termination system' that allows an aircraft to have control overridden if its being hijacked from the ground... Boeing refuses to talk about it or to identify what these features are.

I just say to you I'm not convinced this is distraction, in it would seem to me we could only arrive at the conclusion that it is a distraction if we knew what those features are.

FINTAN: It's certainly possible to engineer in the flight control systems into standard aircraft, which would essentially enable you to turn it into a cruise missile, you have an override system which would use a combination of normal cruise missile terrain based tracking, followed by switchover to a homing beacon as soon as you got in range of the Towers...

This information content arises people in the 9/11 movement don't seem to have considered the possibility that the government might deliberately insert flashes, insert ambiguous content into some of the video footage which was released about that day, in order to deliberately feed what are essentially diversionary issues.

JIM: It might have of course... but I don't know how we can conclude, at least initially, that that was what was done... I mean turns out we have FAA data on the de-registration of these planes, a plane that is involved in a crash would normally be de-certified in something like 48 hours. Two of the four planes were not de-certified until the year 2002, and the other two not until the year 2005. Which means we have an awful lot of evidence that whatever planes may have been involved here, that they are almost certainly not the ones they're purported to be.

FINTAN: Well you know it's difficult to make these judgments, we have to be careful and cautious as we make these judgments... because it's not just a question of uncovering information that they don't want us to find out, there's also the question that any operation like this uses the same tactics as is used by a departing jet to make sure no one shoots it down with a SAM missile.

What you do is, the departing jet throws out a load of 'chaff'. And the 9/11 operation threw out an enormous amount of chaff, which is discretionary information so that you're -- I call it the 'orgy of evidence'. There is so much evidence you don't know which is the real stuff and which isn't. That's not accidental, it's deliberate, they made sure that the evidence pool is huge, literally an orgy of evidence. And much of it is contrived, so you can't tell the real from the fake.

JIM: I agree with that Fintan, that's the whole purpose of research. The whole point in founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth a year ago December was to bring together experts in different areas to sort these things out. I created a research group back in 1992 to study the death of John F. Kennedy and we discovered that most, not just a lot but most of the evidence in this case was phony, fake or fabricated. So believe me -- I understand exactly the point you're making. But it can only be sorted out on the basis of objective scientific research.

FINTAN: I agree, let me just cover other areas and maybe come back to this issue of 'evidence', one of the other clues we have, and I'm sure you'll be aware of it as well, is that the media then cherry-pick what they want to cover out of all the evidence that is available. So traditionally they will pick some of the weakest points that are available... and the danger for us is, is that elements in the 9/11 movement have made a big play of issues which are essentially weak.

One of the problems for us is, there is no central 9/11 movement administration -- so anybody can go out there with information. The danger is, some of that information's very flaky, and we'd also be much better restricting ourselves to what we can or cannot prove, or establish beyond reasonable doubt. Instead of broadening our case out, so much so that when the mainstream media finally ambushes, big time, on prime time TV, they'll pick some of the flakiest stuff that's out there and they'll ignore the good quality evidence. Whereas if we restrict ourselves to good quality, demonstrable evidence -- we'd be in a much better position.

JIM: If one is convinced, as I am convinced, that conventional explosives such as thermite, thermate, even if it were supplemented by something like RDX, cannot possibly account for the destruction of the Twin Towers... much less the other buildings at the World Trade Center, then you are of necessity obligated to look at alternatives that may involve non-conventional explosives -- things like nuclear weapons, whether atomic or hydrogen, maybe mini-nukes or maybe lasers or masers or plasmoids -- now, this is an indispensable aspect of scientific research, Fintan.

It's not a matter of being 'flaky', it's a matter of considering all the possible explanations that might be involved here. And having done quite a bit in this area, and having been attacked quite a few times on this ground, I just must tell you that if you understand the nature of science you appreciate that sometimes you've got to look at hypotheses that may seem implausible or speculative in the beginning, and yet it may be necessitated by the evidence.

I think if anyone wants to go to my discussion of these matters from 17 February I was in Columbus and then the 24th in Phoenix, they can find on the website 911scholars.org four 'youtubes', they're all quite brief, where I am laying out the reasons why the kind of explanations that have been offered by Steven Jones for example -- can't possibly be adequate, and why we have to look elsewhere.

And now, that makes us vulnerable to the kind of cherry-picking or distortion you're talking about, but its an essential part of science. I don't see how science can proceed if you don't consider all of the available alternative hypotheses.

FINTAN: Well I'm in agreement with you there, and we've actually looked at the issue of whether there were esoteric or unknown (in the public domain) weaponry used, in our own investigation at breakfornews.com... we just haven't reached any conclusion on that definitively. But I certainly defend anybody's right to examine those issues. In terms of making definitive conclusions, you've got to be careful until you have sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt.

JIM: I couldn't agree more -- in fact, in my own research, as you may or may not know, professionally I am a philosopher of science, I've devoted 35 years of my life to teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. And that is a crucial issue on which I have focused. Namely, what are the conditions of scientific reasoning, and under what conditions are you entitled to accept or reject or should you hold in suspense a hypothesis... so that's absolutely crucial to scientific investigation.

But just because you're looking at or considering or discussing hypotheses, that's a very different thing from drawing conclusions, or accepting them as true, even if you're doing so in the fallible and tentative fashion characteristic of science. And there is where, I think the other side -- people who want to defend these conventional explanations that I'm convinced are hopelessly inadequate... have done a gross disservice to the 9/11 movement by suggesting that persons like me, or Judy Wood, or Morgan Reynolds who are merely inviting the consideration of non-conventional alternatives -- they're treating us as if we've committed ourselves to them, even as though we've committed ourselves to some specific version.

That's where you get these 'hit' interviews that are grossly misrepresenting the views of say, Judy Wood, whom I consider to be the most qualified member of the 9/11 research community by virtue of her degrees in Civil---

[BREAK] [Jim's voice fades out quickly without announcement; commercial begins]

JIM: Fintan, let me put my concern the other way around... I mean, I'm suggesting in the case of the pods it can be very difficult to sort out whether somebody might be mistaken, or whether they could be deliberately misleading, or whether they might be on to something.

Now you're talking about, some speculation, I presume you're talking about the possibility that directed energy weapons could have been used at the World Trade Center -- which I'm convinced is the case... but what I want to ask you is this: you suggest that we ought to focus on non-controversial [settled?] issues... but I'm not clear which you take those to be. Can you help me understand the issues that ought to be focused on because you think they've been established beyond a reasonable doubt?

FINTAN: I've given an example that touches on the issue of the destruction of the three buildings on 9/11, the Twin Towers and Building Seven. Which is that three buildings fell there, on that day, where there is no substantial cause in civil engineering known for the collapses. That's absolutely definitive, and it's beyond a reasonable doubt I think. Establishing that fire alone cannot be shown to be the definitive cause of collapse -- and you can argue that point very well. Trying to go beyond that, to say what was the cause if it wasn't fire, is difficult. And that starts to get into---

JIM: But Fintan, just bear in mind that the Scholars for example spent a huge amount of time on this... I have two dozen reasons that are based in physics principally, that disprove the government's account. Maybe that's where you want to draw the line, I mean all this gets into the melting point of steel, the highest temperature a jet-based fuel based fire can attain, the steel was certified by Underwriters' Laboratories, such a temperature for such a period of time, that the fires were at much lower temperature for much briefer time, the rate of time that was consumed in the destruction of these buildings versus free-fall, all that sort of thing has been laid out in spades.

So that's one issue and I tend to agree and I frequently said that activists ought to emphasize all of our 'disproofs'. All of our evidence that the government's account can't possibly be correct. Then there's the other alternative of trying to explain what actually happened. This is where thermite, thermate, RDX, lasers, masers, plasmoids, all that come in to play -- so I take it what you're suggesting is basically the same point I have made to 9/11 activists, namely, focus on the disproofs, the refutation of the government's account. And then acknowledge of course we're trying to figure out what happened, but that's a very difficult messy business... and we haven't quite sorted it out yet. Is that basically your position?

FINTAN: I take the OJ Simpson case as a classic case in point. Where somebody seems to have walked, after committing a crime. But if you go into a court of law, and you have some dodgy evidence such as 'somebody planted a glove'... well unfortunately a whole lot of your case ends out being thrown out by the jury.

And that's the danger for us, that any time we depart from firm ground we start compromising our own position and that's precisely the areas the mainstream media will concentrate on. But I'd like to say here as well that I'm not here to take sides in the division in the former-unified organization, as to 9/11. That's not my place -- and in fact, I think it's evidence of a 'divide and conquer mechanism' at play -- and I'm not saying who pulled the divide and conquer stunt, but -- I think that 9/11 activists have got to be more focused on their own resources and analyzing the evidence themselves... and less reliant on the so-called---

JIM: Do you agree that figuring out what happened, in fact, is a legitimate objective of 9/11 research?

FINTAN: I think it is, yes. It's just that I wouldn't regard it as the primary stuff we should go to the mainstream media with... we go with the good 'hard' stuff where we've got a good basis.

JIM: Bear in mind Fintan, we don't go to the mainstream media except when we release press releases... they come to us. You know, we get invited onto shows, it's the decision of the media... if I'm on Hanity & Combs, it's not because I wanted to be on Hanity & Combs, it's because they invited me to make an appearance. So it's very much driven by the media as to who or what happens to be featured at any point in time.

But if in the course of doing the objective scientific research on what actually happened, or considering or exploring different hypotheses, it's very easy to ridicule them, or to caricature them in ways that are beyond our control. Because it's dishonest to what's going on, with respect to the nature of scientific inquiry. That means we're vulnerable in ways, even when we're doing legitimate scientific research.

FINTAN: I appreciate that... and I've encountered some criticism from some people on the forum when we even looked at the issue of esoteric weapons that are not in the public domain. But let me just finish off some of the planks of this disinformation issue, and then come back to some of the issues that you're touching on there. You mentioned the media -- and one of the other problems we have, and I've identified it in some key areas -- I just leave it to people to make their own judgments.

Who's pointing us in the wrong direction towards cardboard 'cut-out' figures? Who's using 'divide and conquer'? Who's contaminating the evidence pool with flaky evidence? And who's wasting our time? But also, who's [dragging?] us into leaving 9/11 territory?

And as a classic case in point there, I point to an appearance by Jimmy Walter on Penn & Teller. Now previously in 2004, Jimmy Walter, who has been a [founder, funder?] of 9/11 Truth, had said in a response to a question on that CNN interview, Anderson Cooper in 2004, the question of what had happened to the passengers in the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? And Jimmy Walter replies, and I'm quoting him now, "Well, I don't know. And I'm not the person to ask this. I don't have the best evidence." You know, that's firm ground -- he's doing a good job it seems, on behalf of the 9/11 movement.

However, when it came to 2005 when he spoke to Penn & Teller, here's what he said in relation to the same issue, of the passengers on the plane that hit the Pentagon. He said and I'm quoting again -- "I firmly believe that many of the alleged passengers in the alleged hijacked aircraft are still alive -- and quite frankly -- I think they're probably all working for the government."

Now that just destroyed us! You want to see what Penn & Teller did with that kind of comment... in terms of how the families might think, that their deceased or missing loved ones are 'working for the government'---

JIM: Was Jimmy Walter entitled to have his opinion, Fintan? You might disagree with it, I might disagree with it, is he entitled to have it?

FINTAN: [Fintan's voice fades up] Well I'll tell you what he's not entitled to do. He's not entitled to express a coherent sensible opinion in 2004 and then on exactly the same issue, express what is clearly a lunatic opinion, that all the passengers were working for the government, and they're all still alive! In 2005! That's where I begin to suspect that I've been 'set up' by Jimmy Walter. Frankly.

JIM: Stand by we'll be right back with my special guest Fintan Dunne, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on the Dynamic Duo.

[BREAK]

JIM: Fintan I very much want you to have the opportunity to complete your discussion of the five legs... I must say that when I look at you're "rogues' gallery" of '9/11 rats', you know, I see some familiar faces there... people in whom I have great confidence... and when I look at your long list of 'CIA Fakes' for websites, I've identified probably 20 of those where I would take rather strong exception with your listing them that way... so I don't know if we'll get there, because I want you to have the opportunity to present your views as much as time will permit. I just wanted to mention that I have some reservations about some of your identifications.

FINTAN: Well that's no problem... everybody's entitled to make their own judgment. I've concentrated tonight on pointing out the trends and tactics and techniques, and then let people see who's steering them the wrong way and make their own judgments on it.

One of the issues, in terms of steering this the wrong way and the kind of games that have been played... we've seen some very interesting and leading figures take a position on the 9/11 issue -- and I'm thinking in particular of Michael Meacher, who sat at cabinet with Tony Blair in the United Kingdom, and also Andreas von Bulow, who had defense responsibilities in the German government. Both of those individuals have come forward and expressed doubts in relation to 9/11. I'm not convinced of the bona fides of individuals such as that.

In particular, I point to the fact that both of these have appeared on Alex Jones' show -- whatever you might say about Alex Jones, you'd have to admit that he is at the very least a controversial figure... with some very controversial opinions. Now normally, politicians -- they don't touch that with a 40 foot pole, to be quite honest, Jim. A politician -- and Michael Meacher, by the way, has just been mentioned as a possible contender in the succession stakes to Tony Blair -- now it's political suicide for a savvy politician... not to express doubts on 9/11, but to start expressing those doubts, for example, on Alex Jones' show, where... he's really going out on a limb! And so I'm wondering if these are genuine convictions on behalf of these individuals -- or, as I suspect, they're running 'cover' for the establishment.

JIM: When it comes to having controversial views, God knows I'm in that same category. Alex Jones organized the American Scholar Symposium, where during the panel discussion which would subsequently be broadcast by C-SPAN, Steve Jones, Bob Bowman, Webster Tarpley and I were the members, the participants at the panel with Alex, and we were there because we share his concerns about 9/11, not all of his views about other issues... but it seems to me that in a lot of ways, his bigger views about the bigger picture are not so far removed from some of your own...

So, this business about being controversial, I mean -- von Bulow was an early recruit as a member of Scholars, and I was very glad that he was willing to take a stand. You also put in there Thierry Meyssan. I mean Thierry Meyssan has in my opinion been quite brilliant in doing research on the Pentagon. His early books on 'Pentagate 9/11: The Big Lies' were very instrumental in drawing me into serious research about 9/11.

Wayne Madsen is another person I'm familiar with who seems to me to be, by and large, doing good work. And where I wonder whether he belongs on your list. I appreciate your right to have your own "rogues' gallery", I'm just not sure that I would include the same persons if I had a list of my own.

FINTAN: In terms of Alex Jones, and what Alex is talking about, it's more the tone and tenor in which he presents his views, rather than anything else, which can lead to him being perceived as somebody who has extreme views on subjects.

JIM: [?] When he tried to pitch it, when they featured him, Dylan Avery and me, they were giving Alex's kind of 'evangelical' -- you know, the passionate minister who is bringing his congregation around... but that was a deliberate slant they were given.

They weren't in any of those cases giving our reasons for holding the views we do about 9/11, instead they were presenting us as figures for analysis by others, who are going to explain from the point of view psychology, why 'people like us' could be 'taken in', and could hold these beliefs -- for example, a writer for the 'X-Files' who ridiculously suggested that we need these conspiracy theories as a form of 'security blanket'. As though anyone derives security from the belief that their government has been committing mass-murder on their fellow citizens!

I thought the whole program from a general point of view, was an absurdity. But it was a nice piece of propaganda for the BBC to be promoting and distributing to the world.

FINTAN: Alex is certainly entitled to his opinion, and entitled to express his opinion, I'm just pointing out the counterpoint between opinion strongly expressed, as he does, and the normal political savvy of a political operator -- who would tend to steer clear of any area where he could be subsequently portrayed to his political detriment by opponents of his, politically. And that is what causes me questions.

JIM: But the alternative would be actually they are engaging in acts of political courage...? I mean, that's that alternate interpretation is it not? So you may have good reasons for wanting to question that, but that's the alternative I myself would be inclined to endorse.

FINTAN: Okay, we have different opinions on that, and that's fine. You mentioned the work of Wayne Madsen. And I do question that because in the 2004 election when Madsen popped up with his story -- which led to considerable ridicule, he was ridiculed by [?Hugh?] for example, where he was talking about a $29 million dollar 'payoff check' which had been used to steal the election. The check never materialized, the story ended up being vaporware... but it wasn't the first time Wayne had given us a bum steer electorally -- because prior to the election he was talking about an impending attack on Iran...

If you remember, there was a lot of psychological warfare games played in the lead-up to the 2004 indicating either that Osama Bin Laden was going to be 'found', by the Pentagon, or alternatively Bush was going to stage some kind of invasion of Iran in order to steal the election. Or come up with another '9/11' maybe, to steal the election. All of these were essentially disinformation. He didn't use any of those---

Hocus Locus · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject:

[Dynamic Duo: 15 March 2007 with Jim Fetzer, Fintan Dunne]
<<<CONTINUES<<<

JIM: But remember they can be false, and not be disinformation. They're only disinformation if you're offering those views knowing that they're false. None of us knew those were false, I was offering opinions like that myself. And I sincerely believed them... they therefore weren't 'disinformation', because you have to not believe, you have to know what you're saying is false. So I'd say, you may be a little hasty here in classifying some of these instances as instances of disinformation.

FINTAN: All I'm doing is going on what Wayne Madsen had published on the issue... what I'm saying when I -- [interject] -- Let me just explain exactly what I mean by 'CIA Fake'...

JIM: Sure...

FINTAN: I said that quite clearly in the article, I said that some of these sites are simply re-hashing and regurgitating intelligence agency sourced information -- and not realizing what they're doing. Others are quite knowingly and deliberately spreading that information.

I was just saying these are sites that I no longer feel I can rely on, because they're either doing it deliberately, or doing it unknowingly. And whatever it was -- Wayne Madsen was reporting on October 20th 2004 that according to his insiders, the Bush Administration was preparing an imminent strike and his headline was, "Bush Pre-Election Strike on Iran: Imminent!"

JIM: Let me just tell you Fintan, I recently had six experts on Iran on my program on three consecutive days, devoted six hours to this, and I became convinced in relation to that, and especially perhaps the work of Webster Tarpley in relation to this -- that an attack on Iran was indeed imminent, and I said so then, that it was in relation to, the 'phase of the moon'. Maybe it had to do with the 17th of February. That was the date I was expecting this might happen.

I'm just telling you there's a lot of evidence out there that tends to support that belief, and I've been inclined toward it myself -- yet it was not manifestly 'disinformation' because what I was saying was something I absolutely believed, and had good reason for offering.

[BREAK]

JIM: Fintan, I want to give you the rest of the show to tell us all the things that you haven't been able to say. I know that time has been a precious and limited commodity. Please do -- complete your impressions of what's going on here.

FINTAN: I'd like to turn to some of the issues I see as diversionary... and which are taking us in the wrong direction. And maybe turn to some personalities closer to home, to the situation that you found yourself in with 'Scholars'.

As I say, I'm not here to defend Jim Fetzer or take sides with Jim Fetzer, and I'm sure you appreciate that... and I do have concerns in terms of the role that Steven Jones has played in the 9/11 movement. And those concerns go back to something that you alluded to yesterday, which was his role in the 'cold fusion' controversy which took place when Ponds and Fleischmann came forward with their announcement that they were getting more energy out of a cold fusion process than you would expect by normal physical means.

Now Steven Jones' intervention -- in fact -- he was the person who peer-reviewed their initial paper on that issue, and he was effectively 'shadowing' their research. He had a catastrophic impact on what they came forward with, because he was working in a similar field... and yet what he said was, that he was finding nothing like the results they were finding... he portrayed cold fusion as being a dead-end technology -- which was an interesting artifact, and nothing more, nothing less. In fact he used the words, "Read my lips!" when he denounced Ponds and Fleischmann.

However, in the intervening period, cold fusion has gone from strength to strength as much as it can... in an era where it's been blacklisted by all of the reputable university and other research institutions around the world -- because of that controversy. So I'm concerned that Steven Jones set back an alternative to fossil fuels, by maybe 15 to 20 years! By the role that he played at that time. And that just causes me to have some caution in terms of how I view his role currently in the 9/11 movement.

So I'm at one with you in terms of having those concerns you expressed about his role in that area previously.

But also as an equal opportunity critic of the 9/11 issue, I must say also that you referred to the work that Judy Woods had done -- and, you know, I'm concerned that I don't find sufficient substance in what Judy Wood is putting forward. Much of our debate on this issue that we had in the breakfornews.com forum was looking at what the nature of these weapons might be, and some practical physics methodology that could be employed to deploy them -- and would be consistent with what we saw on that day, and would not leave a trace, and would not be picked up et cetera -- in other words, we had to at least come up with some kind of a substantive basis of the nature of such a weapon.

And that's not beyond us... it's not beyond our capabilities. We know there are certain types of technologies that could be deployed, and we can certainly make informed guesses as to the kind of weaponry that might be used, but I find that that level of detail is missing from what Judy is saying, and she's instead relying on some observational evidence -- am I right, in characterizing her evidence that way? In being very weak, in terms of what was actually 'used'?

JIM: No, I think the evidence is really disconfirmatory of the use of conventional modes of destruction and is an invitation to consider non-conventional modes of destruction.

I mean when you look at the concentration of damage to just the buildings that had WTC designations, when you look at the enormous gouges out of Building Six for example, when you look at the cookie-cutter kinds of holes in Building Five, when you see half of Building Four is completely demolished, the other half remaining more or less intact... when you see Building Three has a huge gash in it, when you look at the non-functional damage to the bathtub, when you look at the toasted cars -- and then when you look at the residue form hangar 17 at JFK... when you look at this meteor-like compressions of metal and steel, and when you see the bent steel, and all that.

It's overwhelmingly evident to me from looking at this evidence that we can refer to as 'hard evidence', that she has archived at her site, drjudywood.com... then I see no possibility that thermite, thermate, RDX could account for this.

Fintan I just see no way in which you can explain what we have to explain, technically known as the explanandum, based upon conventional modes. Now she hasn't committed herself to what precise type of non-conventional mode was involved here... but I think she's absolutely right that we have to be open-minded, because it's apparent to me from reviewing this evidence that non-conventional modes of destruction of one sort or another were used here.

FINTAN: Well, I'd just like to see some working through of that, at least some scientifically informed discussion of that, and it's not beyond us, the technology of these kinds of weapons systems is not entirely unknown, and there's certainly well-informed speculation on the nature of these... and the [?] principles on the line [?] -- so I just find it [?]

JIM: Fintan, she had some very precise calculations for example, about the amount of dust that would be generated by the dustification, or pulverization of the buildings, and it seems to be approximately correct... I mean, most of those buildings were turned into very fine dust. Now that's not something that can be done by thermite, thermate or RDX. So far I can see it's an impossibility that these buildings could have been destroyed the way they were using conventional modes of destruction. So I think she's got a very sound, scientific case. See if you study her site, there are calculations about many different aspects of this. Remember, she's a very sophisticated student of these matters, with degrees in Civil Engineering, and Engineering Mechanics and Materials Engineering Science.

FINTAN: Yeah, and I'd like her to concentrate on those areas... and that's what I just found speculative, when she's not substantiating with a type of weaponry. But anyway -- just a critic, how I view that issue.

But when I start to draw links between different individuals and I'm looking at where individuals have appeared on forums together and I'm looking at who's pushing certain information, who's picking it up, who's running with the ball... that's where I start to tie together what I call the 'CIA Fakes', where I get my 'Rats Nest' listing from.

For example, when I find a guy like General Ivashov appearing at an 'Axis of Peace' meeting in Brussels, and this is a guy who's former head of the Russian armed forces -- just to put it in context -- he's sitting there alongside 9/11 skeptics. And I'm just wondering to myself -- if you really get, for example, a former US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a 9/11 truth meeting. Then you'd have the picture that I'm trying to put together in my brain, how it could possibly by that this extremely dubious looking individual who headed the Russian armed forces -- is supposedly a 9/11 skeptic. And which informs my view that a number of key political, and in this case military figures are running 'cover' for the G8.

To ensure that if there is to be discussion of the 9/11 issue, they'll steer it in the 'correct' direction. And so I just question it when I see people sitting down with the likes of General Ivashov -- or Wayne Madsen, I don't care whether he's still NSA or ex-NSA, if I can see that he's been putting out bad information about for example, the Iran attack, which has got to be 'imminent' now for about four years, or at least 3-1/2 years...! I mean how imminent is imminent, Jim?

When do you reach the point where you start to put two and two together and realize that this is part of the 'total news management' cycle that these people have -- and they've beaten us to death[ with this Iran invasion issue... when there's substantive reasons to believe that the whole reason they went into Iraq in the first place, in confidence, knowing the Iranians were on-[?] and weren't going to ambush them in the South of the country, leaving them only the Sunni in the North to deal with... and that's the political reality behind the scenes -- and all of this Iran invasion stuff is completely dubious.

Because the Iranian leadership are 'on board'! And have been on-board ever since the Iranian Revolution was engineered by Western intelligence. Knowing that the Shah was about to fall.

So that's a clear substantive position, and those are the kind of bases I'm using to reach my determinations on this. All I can do is say to people, check it out for themselves and make their own conclusions -- but follow the logic I'm using: Who's pointing you in the wrong direction? Who's dividing and conquering? Who's contaminating the evidence? Who's wasting your time? Who's dragging you into 'loopy' 9/11 areas? And then draw your own conclusions from that.

JIM: Fintan, I'm very pleased to have had the chance to have you on... I'm fascinated by your take on all these things, and whether I agree or disagree it's a great value to me, and I think to everyone else engaged in 9/11 research to have such a distinctive original point of view, that requires us to reassess our views a lot of things that we may have taken for granted. Some of them perfectly inadvertently, and in passing. So I'm very glad to have had this chance to have you on, and I'd be inclined to think at some point down the road we ought to do it again.

FINTAN: I certainly welcome the non-emotional tone of our discussion, and the logical and reasonable tone of our discussion. Jim, it's been great to be on the show.

JIM: Thanks again to my special guest Fintan Dunne... this has been Jim Fetzer your host on the Dynamic Duo. Thank you for listening.

<<<ENDQUOTE<<<
(((Fixed colors, at this point I think text is moreorless correct. I invite corrections on all these transcripts via PM ~HL)))

Hocus Locus · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject:

Another job well done and well expressed Fintan!

I notice Mr. Fetzer is open to Fintan's views -- selectively open. The bigger the issue gets, the more the 'agree to disagree' comfort zone is achieved. Curiousity about Fintan's methods for list inclusion, understandable; as is Fintan's reluctance to discuss details, except those for personae not directly connected with the 'present' 9/11 sphere, with the (obvious) exception of SJ.

But there is one theme that keeps repeating itself, even when Fintan doesn't invite it -- a theme that has nothing whatsoever to do with exotic 'scalar' weaponry. For Jim is absolutely correct: it is unreasonable to rule out hypotheses before 'all' the facts are in. Which leaves us with observations about events, things, people and currents. And every idea under the sun, except one.

Theory goes...

'Scholars' was formed not for the purposes of promotion -- but the purpose of demotion. To demote the specific idea that conventional explosives could have levelled the Towers, and that purpose only. Everything else is taken up already in other venues, covered elsewhere.

Being soley fixed on demotion of this single precept, it has 'free rein' in all other areas. This means Fintan is very welcome, only one subject is 'taboo'... or guaranteed for a fight it's clear from the transcript. An eerily similar sentiment can be found in Steve Jones' lectures. Demotion.

Ms. Wood takes everyone into orbit.

Mr. Fetzer provides a comfortable landing spot, a place in which those enamored with Wood's ideas, yet need a comfortable place to talk shop and broader issues, so long as one is prepared to abide by the demotive aspect, and is comfortable (and has the patience and time) to center on methods that do not fit Occam's Razor. Or Thermite. Or Thermate. He is the left flank.

Steve Jones is the one who is to gather all the breathren who worship the Razor just enough that they need to seek an explanation somehow rooted on planet Earth -- but are nevertheless misled (ah, but slightly) by Prof. Jones' (gentle) insistence that therm[i,a]te 'fits like a glove' and RDX (or various whatevers) could not, did not. It is a gentle hand of demotion which they will tolerate, until the Big Surprise. He is the right flank.

I see a pattern of movement here. Left flank and right flank form their own influences and confluences, but there is but one confluence -- two movements -- intersecting and united only around an idea that, save for some hasty assumption about physics, it is somehow true that 9/11 was special. In that all the basic and proven methods for attacking buildings with diagnoal shaped cutting charges -- somehow -- were not used for, could not have possibly been used to bring down these buildings.

Mr. Fetzer will sell them a miracle.

One that on the Last Day will (still) be assumed to exist, and the proof is just around the corner. But attempts to deliver the goods will run up against the usual Illuminati walls -- the ones used to conceal things that were never there. Actually no one is really worried about deployment secrets of scalar weaponry from leaking out. And none will ever escape. And no wonder. It's perfect.

I once knew someone who worked (vaguely with but they were damned sure it existed) the 'Original Star Wars' Project. The greatest human achievment that never was. I'm no stranger to Scalar technology... and its true purpose in today's world.

Meanwhile, Prof. Jones will lead the down-to-Earth flock along the path of Science that exists to-day! And with every telling about thermite and thermate, fielding more and more questions as time goes on about straight cutting charges. First the equations that brush against fluid dynamics with countless variables hidden inside (safe academic territory) but always and ever deny conventional (common) explosives.

His ludicrous assertion that 'ID tags' must somehow be present in the by-product of conventional explosives -- a bit of deceit dropped so casually in an interview -- shall never be forgotten, and can never be explained fully in a kind and polite way. For that matter, can the reluctance to consider conventional means.

Once his flock and the media they serve are quite sure that only thermite could have done it, something's going to happen.

Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Jones cannot seem to grant due process to the idea that this thing could have been done simply and reliably with off the shelf methods, even if they were applied in (slightly but surgically precise) unprecedented amouints.

It's a classic 'pincher' move. It's all about, and all comes down to conventional demolition avoidance, somehow.

So that must be how it was done. Thought so.

It's a shame because Mr. Fetzer is an extremely interesting and intelligent person, and though we fall on opposite sides of this fence I hold no grudges. And no, with this type of schism there's no philosophical tidepool we could tarry in. Not now, because 9/11 pisses me off. No, being pissed off doesn't feel 'good'... but it's real. And urgent.

___
"And to St. Peter, I must say, I learned my lesson well..."
While there's hope for reason. For justice. Something to come home to. Stay this madness.

Fintan · Site Admin Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 5198

The CIA Fakes Just Blinked!

How the relentless pressure finally paid off.

For a year and a half the CIA Fakes have frozen out the
revealing 9/11 analysis found in the BreakForNews Forum.
Now, in the face of mounting support and a growing dawning
of the truth --they've finally blinked!

Including:

- The Trap that Backfired
- The Alex Jones Connection
- The CIA Fakes Advance Man
- Space Beams and Monty Phyton
- Fake is as Fake Does

DSL Mp3 Audio

http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel070322a.mp3

Dialup Mp3 Audio

http://www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel070322.mp3

TJ · Joined: 09 Mar 2007 Posts: 15 Location: Washington, DC

In a Lemon Orchard, I Make Lemonade...

Again: Good show! Especially given the circumstances... and the subject matter (i.e., me, in significant part).

Yes, Fintan, I introduced you to Sibel Edmonds. I also introduced Jim Fetzer to your info & suggested that he invite you as a guest. Did I see the irony & counterintuitiveness of both introductions? Yes! In part, that's why I made the introductions!

Fintan, as you may recall, it was I who first stated to you that Sibel Edmonds was wittingly or unwittingly supporting the Official Government Conspiracy Theory ("OGCT"). Since you were still in the midst of your "CIA Fakes" investigation, you dismissed my assertions. When I first met Sibel at dinner at the National Press Club, this was my FIRST question to her (posed in a public forum -- the audio of which still exists). Is Sibel wittingly supporting the evolving OGCT? To me, it doesn't matter whether it's "witting" or not. But she is supporting it...

As for Jim Fetzer, my questions about Jim are similar to yours & to those of some of your BFN Forum members. However, my conclusions about Jim are nowhere near as firm as yours appear to be. About GCN, I have no doubt. You are quite correct.

When you've written & said as much as Fetzer on JFK & other matters, you too might think that you're pretty smart. But 9/11 is an order of magnitude or more above the JFK assassination, etc., in complexity. You know this -- even if Fetzer does not. Initially, I also did not know this.

You later told others & me that you did & said what you did regarding Edmonds, Hopsicker, etc. because you were in the midst of your "CIA Fakes" investigation. After you concluded your investigation, you have apparently concluded that I too am amongst the fakes -- because I was able to personally get to know some of those to whom YOU first introduced me on your site. Laughing

(Actually: ROTFLMAO...)

After your "CIA Fakes" expose', what were my choices? I live & work in a lemon orchard (Washington, DC). I have access to many good lemons.

As you know (but most readers & listeners do not), you & I have semi-casually known each other since 2003 (when you worked with Alex Merklinger). In pre-"CIA-Fakes" 2005, we stopped communications (in part due to my continued gullibility to those whom you later called the "CIA Fakes" (i.e., some of your regular guests) and due to a mistake that I probably made about Hurricane Katrina -- after which you kicked me off your previous Forum, without explanation). Regardless, I still had the benefit of your analyses; however, you didn't have the benefit of mine. Wink

Fintan, you're one of the brightest & most incisive analysts on the scene -- on many scenes. However, your hats are still too small for your head... Smile

Yes, I re-registered for your BFN Forum a couple of days before your show with Fetzer. And I told you why in a Private Message & semi-obliquely in a public BFN Forum post -- i.e., I introduced Jim Fetzer to your info (beginning in August 2006) & I only recently suggested that he invite you as a guest on his show (to which he readily agreed). Fetzer & I often disagree. This was NOT one of those times.

Last Wednesday (when you had phone problems with GCN & Fetzer), the local phone company also semi-inexplicably cut off MY phone service. Jim tried unsuccessfully to call me to resolve problems during an early break (I'm in the international telecom business). As you accurately state, GCN was the problem. And Jim could have resolved this by initiating a 3-way call to you from his home (as I later told him -- and you, in a P.M.).

What happened was a BETTER result (NOT a "trap that backfired"). We all witnessed the witting or unwitting GCN screw-ups. At my readily-accepted suggestion, Fetzer then postponed a scheduled guest to invite you for a full 2-hour show on the following day. The rest is history. Again: Good show!

If you're interested in continuing to "out" me, then let me continue to do it first (in my usual semi-narcissistic but self-deprecating manner). As you know, I met Daniel Ellsberg a couple of weeks before he released the Pentagon Papers in 1970. I met Ellsberg & his son at an anti-Vietnam-War symposium in St. Louis; recognized the newness of his assertions; and offered to drive him & his son to the airprort (during which drive, Ellsberg broadly outlined what he planned to do). There is a longer but more semi-interesting story -- if anyone is interested...

In 2004, Ellsberg LIED to Sibel about me. Ellsberg told Sibel that he & I had never met (because he supposedly wasn't in St. Louis when we met -- Ellsbeg did NOT say: "I don't recall"). Surprisingly, I couldn't prove Ellsberg to be mistaken on the internet. But my proof IS in the St. Louis newspaper archives.

Although I knew & talked about the support that Sibel provided for the OGCT, Sibel still invited me to her big Press Conference events -- in part because I could bring former Senator Mike Gravel (now running for U.S. President -- and another guest that I got for Fintan). Although Gravel "mooted" the U.S. Supreme Court continuing injunction against publishing the Pentagon Papers by reading them aloud in the US Senate, and Gravel & Ellsberg knew each other fairly well in 1970, I still needed to re-introduce Gravel & Ellsberg at one of Sibel's press conferences. They did not recognize each other in 2004.

Other than eliminating competition, why did Dan Ellsberg want to stop me from advising Sibel about how her story was supporting the OGCT, etc.? Ellsberg knew (from Sibel) that I was Jim Marrs' Literary Agent on two of Jim's four 9/11 books (which contain mistakes, yes, I know). But Ellsberg "and Company" (maybe or probably) then ALSO knew that I would also know about Colonel Fletcher Prouty's statements about Ellsberg from Jim Marrs (i.e., that Ellsberg was wittingly or unwittingly acting as a tool of the CIA et al in implicating the U.S. military (only) as the prime culprit in the Vietnam War -- they were not; see Fintan's posts about this, citing Prouty as a prime source).

I realized most of the above on the day that I took the pictures of Ellsberg & Sibel at a rally in front of the U.S. Courthouse in Washington. And I later told Fintan. Did I still hold out hopes that Ellsberg & Sibel could be useful re 9/11? Yes, I did. Was I wrong? I know... But YOU should be the judge.

As previously indicated only in part, I have been involved in 9/11-related issues for 40+ years. I live to do this work. This is no idle hobby for me. Did Fintan insult me by "outing" me as an "Advance Man" for some of the "CIA Fakes" that he encourged me in part to know? Hell, NO! As you may know, some people don't like Fintan. Razz

I can probably use what Fintan said about me to OUR benefit (as I have in the past). Independent work is probably our best work. However, FYI, Fintan's early, dated, audio interview with me on "The pEEk Oil Strategy & Energy Abundance" is in his audio archives for 10-Sep-04. And we also did a couple of other things together. You be the judge...

IMHO, GCN & Alex Jones leave too much to be desired, as does Steve Jones & his thermite-centric 9/11 hypothesis (to say the least) . Although possibly mistaken, I still have hopes for Jim Fetzer & Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Fetzer is independent of GCN; and he certainly does not get paid by them (or anyone else, that I kinow of) for what he is doing.

Dr. Judy Wood may be mistaken in part about what Fintan & Steve Jones call "Space Beams" (in semi-subtle, semi-usual ridicule). However, IMHO, neither the Reverend Steve Jones nor ANYONE else can account for as much of the causitive WTC pulverization data, "toasted cars," etc., as does the semi-speculative but semi-definitive 100-page (printed) article about 9/11 Directed-Energy Weapons ("DEW") at www.DrJudyWood.com. Is Wood's work the best work with which to lead the 9/11 charge? No. But, so what?

Truth is sometimes stanger than fiction. In addition, in an insane world, only the crazy people CAN be sane (however, this is no guarantee of one's sanity -- believe me, I know). These statements certainly do NOT mean that Wood is completely correct. And Fintan's ridicule of Wood certainly does NOT mean that Fintan is scientifically correct. But -- Wood needs to answer some of the questions that Fintan & others have asked. And Fintan may want to take his ridicule a little bit less seriously. Shocked

For the moment, I remain your semi-reluctant Mister Magoo, Walter Mitty, Austin Powers, and Forrest Gump -- all loosely wrapped into one. I don't know what else to do. But I am open to your suggestions...

In the lemon orchard that is Washington, I make lemonade -- as sweet or as sour as you like it. You be the judge...

P.S. Fintan -- Thanks for spilling my name correctly! Mad

navari · Guest

TJ · Joined: 09 Mar 2007 Posts: 15 Location: Washington, DC

Navari, :roll: Exclamation

navari · Guest

jose · Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 23

But hey, what the heck, you only live once!

Fintan!

Speaking of CIA fakes and how they are making fools of themselves to purposely discredit anyone who doesn't buy the official story about a mad Arab in a cave, here is an observation about your last show:

After ranting for 40 minutes about clowns who believe in space beams and holograms, just two minutes before the show ends, you reiterate about the lunacy that goes in the 9/11 truth movement.

Then you proceed, out of nowhere, to talk about "The Mayan Calendar" by by Carl Johan Calleman and Jose Arguelles...

Great! So the leading debunker of the lunatics of 9/11, closes his expose recommending a book coauthored by a guy who believes in galactic beams, Mayan etheric engineering, Arcturian space stations, Atlantian family histories and claims to be Valum Votan, the reincarnation of the Maya ruler Pacal Votun!

What the hell?!?!? Michael Hayden will gladly send your check this month.

Well done man! I think we deserve an explanation dude...

hawkwind · Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 561

micpsi · Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Posts: 41

Dunne cannot distinguish between fallible people who just happened to get their facts or predictions wrong on a particular occasion (Wayne Madsen), people who have a public persona of being on a public crusade (Alex Jones) and those who sincerely believe they have to consider more exotic, scientific explanations for the events of 9/11 (Judy Wood). Instead, such people in the 9/11 movement that Dunne disagrees with are all rolled together indiscriminately and without proof under his vacuous rubric of 'CIA fake,' as if pinning labels on people one merely disagrees with is sufficient to cancel their credibility! How puerile can one get?

Dunne's defence in Fetzer's program for using the term was totally inadequate. He had the opportunity of providing sound EVIDENCE for his typecasting of so many people widely respected in alternative news media. Instead, he blew it by demonstrating that it amounts merely to HIS subjective feelings whether he calls people 'CIA fakes' - a vacuous opinion unsupported by ANY objective, incontrovertible evidence. It turns him into the Rush Limbaugh of the 9/11 truth movement - one full of prejudiced attitudes who likes to pick out his own Aunt Sallies to knock down in order to make himself feel superior. Being opinionated without being able to justify oneself with sound evidence or argument does not cut it. It is the reason why so many of Dunne's peers in the 9/11 truth movement have only disdain for his arrogant elitism ("The next level") and don't take seriously his almost libellous name-calling. He was lucky the polite Fetzer let him off so lightly. He really did not deserve it.

TJ · Joined: 09 Mar 2007 Posts: 15 Location: Washington, DC

Hi again, Navari:

You responded to my statement that "what little you have seen & heard of me is not all that I do or am" by saying: "Go ahead, TJ. Explain. We're all waiting and listening."

If you Google my name (i.e., >Thomas-J-Mattingly<), then you'll find out a little more about me. In addition, if you Google >Thomas-J-Mattingly Saddam-Hussein<, then you'll find that I at least minimally participated in Fintan & Kathy's story about "The Sham Saddam Scam." I coined the name, and I circulated the story as widely as possible. This is a story about which Fintan said that NONE of the "CIA Fakes" would repeat & circulate. I did.

In addition, I also helped to precipitate Fintan's story about "Polio Joins the War on Terror" (in part about the contaminated polio vaccines being foisted upon Third World peoples -- especially Muslims -- by the World Health Organization, etc.). This is also the story about the fake nature of much if not all of the polio virus and its disproportionate impact on (or use against) Muslim populations.

Some Muslim friends from Nigeria asked me to look into this. I called Fintan, who had already done most of the research that we needed. The real 'polio' culprit appears to be neurotoxins contained in anti-mosquito, anti-malaria insecticides (e.g., DDT). I circulated this story as widely as possible in Nigeria and in other predominantly Muslim countries. I'm now working with my Nigerian Muslim friends & associates on upcoming April presidential elections. 'My' candidate has a good chance to win -- unless the elections are fixed in part by the West (again)...

Although I initially repeated & circulated some of the post-Muslim-patsy stories about Israelis possibly or probably being primarily responsible for or disproportionately involved in 9/11, as I semi-thoroughly researched this 9/11 angle, I found that Israelis & Jews were probably (also) being tarred & feathered as alternative patsies for 9/11. Unfortunately, half the world may believe that the Jews & their Neo-Con allies did 9/11 (including significant portions of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement).

Proponents of "The Jews & Israelis Did 9/11 Hypothesis" will not publicly debate the few people who are sufficiently knowledgeable about the plethora of Red Herrings surrounding this 9/11 issue. Nevertheless, I encourage thorough research into this issue in order to find at least ONE "smoking gun" that is not a Red Herring or Limited Hang-Out (if such exists -- it may not). So far, I have found NONE. I continue to look. And I continue to encourage 'respectable' discussion & debate between & amongst 'reputable' spokespeople on this issue. So far, i have no 'takers' (or only one side & not the other -- each time that I've tried).

Even before Fintan's Fetzer interview on "The Destruction of the USA," I pushed the idea that Daddy Bush's Boy George & the Neo-Cons are long-time patsies being set up for a fall on 9/11, Iraq, etc. This resonates well and results in "smoother" sailing on non-OGCT 9/11 issues amongst both Democrats and Republicans.

In 2004, I (quietly) didn't vote for either Bush or Kerry. I didn't vote. Period. DC's presidential electoral votes would go for Kerry no matter how I voted. However, I did get to know three (3) of Kerry's putative 'high officials' and came 'distantly close' to mounting a legal challenge to the electoral fraud. To say the least, it was interesting to watch these guys go from wanting to challenge the 2004 fruadulent fix to saying "Take you complaints to the General Accountability Office. They're doing an investigation." :roll:

Given my semi-inside info on electoral fraud against candidates that I at least nominally supported, a decent publisher asked me to write & edit several books on electoral fraud around the world. Although I might have made some money doing this, I didn't do it. I chose to continue work on more pressing matters -- that may be paradoxically more doable. These issues include but are not limited to Tesla-type & other oil replacement technologies, crop-doubling agricultural technologies, cheap earth-girdling universal telecom technologies, 9/11, etc.

The above is unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg of projects on which I'm actively and not-so-actively working. I'm spread too thin (to the point of being ineffective). There are also more controversial projects on which I'm working, which I'll probably discuss in the BFN Forum at a later date. I don't need or want your approval. But I would like feedback. Nevertheless, I'm not a 'big fish' (or even a "big lemon" -- your term Smile

). I'm not even a member of the National Press Club. And I go there only once every two (2) weeks (max.). However, I do get speakers & send out email notices for one of their groups. Fintan & Kathy get copies.

You ask: "Do you see everyone as your opponent, TJ[?]"

No. Quite the opposite. I see almost everyone as potentially persuadable on 9/11 issues -- if approached in an appropriate manner. This may be part of my problem. Even when I should give up on some people, I don't.

You say: "Market share can be way overrated, especially if one must compromise to get it... I sure don't want to be associated with left wingnut shills..."

If we don't have it already, then we almost have enough 'market share' to make a real difference (i.e., with those who know that the OGCT is false in significant respects). What we may be missing (or not seeing) is the social & other 'machinery' to remedy the pre-math & after-math of 9/11. There is NO government on this planet that is ready, willing & able to bring the 9/11 perps 'to justice.' Does that mean that we should rule out 'justice'? No.

Nevertheless, we can't even 'remedy' the problems until a 'critical mass' of this nation and/or other significant nations know the nature & extent of the problems (they don't) -- and are ready, willing & able to do something about them (they're not). As I see it, this is A purpose of the 9/11 3i BFN Forum. I don't care if they're Right Wingers, Left Wingers, Center Wingers, or No Wingers. The 'Divide & Conquer' strategy of the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps has gone far enough -- i.e., too far! Calling too many people an 'agent' (witting or unwitting) can be one tactic in this 'Divide-&-Conquer' strategy...

You say: "It all about understanding market segmentation, isn't it? Startup 101."

Fintan & others understand this area better than I do. However, I know enough not to bring coal to Newcastle -- or Halal pork to the Jews. Twisted Evil

You say & you ask: "Dude, there are others here that can make wind. By the way, how well do lemons sail?"

I too can provide my own tail wind... Butt, my closest experience to 'sailing lemons' was getting into a friendly, 'overly-ripe,' orange-throwing 'fight' at 50 meters with some newly-met friends in a Mexican orchard. Ex-Squeeze me?

You say: "I do not see how you can 'align' with the goals here, as the means are the ends in the making."

Ah, making ends meet... I can sometimes do that. However, yes, the medium is the message. And our means are our interim goals (if not our final ones). 'Don't worry; Be happy' -- 'Fear & Confusion,' gone! ... "Full Spectrum Liberty," here we come...

Speaking of 'that,' you say: "But everyone knows that Mini-me was the BIG brain of the operation."

I know, I know... Have you got 'that' problem too? Tell me about it...

P.S. Getting back to the topic at hand, "The world is a peculiar place -- except for me and thee; and sometimes I [too] wonder about..." me... Twisted Evil

videodrome666 · Last edited by videodrome666 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fintan · Site Admin Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 5198