|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 5324
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject: 9/11 Rats Pt2: Scooter, Reggie & the Birds of a Feather |
  |
|
 
The Rat's Nest of 9/11: Part 2
'Scooter,' Reggie & the Birds of a Feather
In the CIA Internet Fakes, released 4th August, 2005, we outed
a host of websites --either controlled by the CIA/FBI/KGB/ETC,
or hopelessly compromised by willingly gushing out heaps of Intel-
designed 9/11 Tabloid Crud. Then, in 9/11 Rats Nest: Part 1
we identified the people trying so hard to fool you.
Now, let's see how the same crew of CIA Fakes have staged
'PlameGate,' and other pivotal CIA-managed operations.
by Fintan Dunne, BreakForNews.com 14 Feb, 2006
URL: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=454#454
Some of this ground, I have covered before, as you will see if you follow
the key hyperlinks. But developments in the Scooter Libby's 'PlameGate'
case mean that an overview of events is going to be very informative.
It's going to show you how the CIA Fakes are singing dumb on the most
blatant piece of political engineering since... well, since WaterGate!
The CIA Fakes are careful never to clue you in to the really key 'Ops.'
God forbid you should figure out what is really going on. And it doesn't
take the wisdom of Solomon to discern it. As you will see.
Speaking of Solomon, and as a good starting point, consider this article
from Norman Solomon on the usually, rather unsurprising AlterNet.
Can you read between these lines? This is about as close as anyone
besides yours truly has come to outing Judith Miller as a CIA agent.
Here's goes Norman Solomon, sailing as close to the wind as the
mainstream allows, in this commentary on PlameGate:
| Quote: | Judith Miller, the Fourth Estate and the Warfare State
By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. October 17, 2005.
During the propaganda buildup for the invasion of Iraq, Judith Miller and the New York Times served as a key asset of the warfare state.
Judith Miller is a reporter for the New York Times. After the invasion, on assignment to cover a U.S. military unit as it searches for WMDs in Iraq, she's given "clearance" by the Pentagon "to see secret information" -- which she "was not permitted to discuss" with Times editors.
"There's nothing wrong with this picture if Judith Miller is an intelligence operative for the U.S. government. But if she's supposed to be a journalist, this is a preposterous situation..."
http://alternet.org/columnists/story/26947/ |
Well! If that isn't dropping a big hint that Miller is one of the legion of CIA
hacks spattered across mainstream and alternative media, then Solomon
must be just exercising his writing talent to uselessly pad out sentences.
I've been saying since early Fall 2005, that the Plame affair is a contrived
scandal. Just as 'MonicaGate'' was. Just as WaterGate was.
All these are CIA/Establishment constructions to keep the masses amused
and befuddled, while arranging political earthquakes which signal planned
shifts in the landscape of the monotonous, two-in-one-party US political
monopoly. And the more it changes, the more it stays the same.
And if even Solomon can point to the tip of that iceberg, then surely that
begs the question of why we are so vocal about the rest of the iceberg --
while the CIA Fakes are buzy singing dumb.
Because this is much bigger than just Judith Miller. (Who only did jail time
because that was necessary to give legs to the PlameGate scandal. All part
of the carefull coreography of this well-managed "scandal.")
SEE NO EVIL
First they promised the Democratic heartland the head of George Bush.
It never happened. Kerry's deep roots in the D.C. establishment saw to that.
Then it was Karl Rove's head which was dangled as bait to keep the left
clinging to the delusion of real politics. But GannonGate never paid off.
Now it is Dick Cheney's head which is the latest lure. That prospect has
always been the subtext of the PlameGate issue. It won't happen.
But that must never be even hinted at by the left's disinformation crew.
To illustrate, here's some calculated spinning by Justin Raimondo, who
clearly buys all this BS - or appears to anyway:
| Quote: | "Before Fitzgerald is done, we'll see the warlords of Washington hauled before a court of the people. We'll hear the whole sordid story of how a band of exiles, at least two foreign intelligence agencies, and a cabal of neoconservatives inside the Pentagon and the vice president's office bamboozled Congress and the American people into going to war."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681 |
Note the persistent "Blame it on the Neocons" angle. They "bamboozled
Congress," you see. Their tail wagged the world superpower dog.
( According to this prefabricated "fall-guys" routine, the invasion of Iraq and
the preceeding mass-murder on the 9/11, were NOT the bright idea of the
Washington Establishment and their G8 henchmen. They are peace-loving
diplomats who were simply fooled by the nasty neocons. ROTFLMAO! )
The latest Plamegate developments are being hyped by the left media, as
if the heads of both Libby and of Cheney are already on the block -
awaiting the coup-de-grace.
Forget it. Try this level-headed assesment from one mainstream reporter
who can see exactly why Libby is going to walk -despite the hype:
| Quote: | Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information
By Murray Waas, National Journal, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006
© National Journal Group Inc.
...The new information indicates that Libby is likely to pursue a defense during his trial that he was broadly "authorized" by Cheney and other "superiors" to defend the Bush administration in making the case to go to war. Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press.
Libby's legal strategy in asserting that Cheney and other Bush administration officials authorized activities related to the underlying allegations of criminal conduct leveled against him, without approving of or encouraging him to engage in the specific misconduct, is reminiscent of the defense strategy used by Oliver North, who was a National Security Council official in the Reagan administration.....
If Libby's defense adopts strategies used by North, it might be in part because the strategies largely worked for North and in part because Libby's defense team has quietly retained John D. Cline, who was a defense attorney for North....
Among his detractors, Cline is what is known as a "graymail" specialist-an attorney who, critics say, purposely makes onerous demands on the federal government to disclose classified information in the course of defending his clients, in an effort to force the government to dismiss the charges....
In the Libby case, Cline has frustrated prosecutors by demanding, as part of pretrial discovery, more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief, or PDBs, the president's morning intelligence briefing....
In the North case, the Iran-Contra independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, was forced to dismiss many of the central charges against North, ..... because intelligence agencies and the Reagan administration refused to declassify documents necessary for a trial on those charges.
"It was a backdoor way of shutting us down," said one former Iran-Contra prosecutor.... "It was a cover-up by means of an administrative action, and it was an effective cover-up at that."
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm |
| Quote: | Stop Press: Libby Lawyer Launches "Greymail" Bid
Fri, Feb. 17, 2006 ...In arguments filed late Thursday, Fitzgerald said Libby's lawyers were trying to derail the perjury and obstruction case by pressing for nearly a year's worth of presidential daily briefs... Fitzgerald accused Libby of attempting to commit "greymail,"... On Friday, Libby attorney John Cline denied that the defense was trying to derail the case. "We are working lawfully and properly ... to obtain documents essential to Mr. Libby's defense," he said.
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=490&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 |
So there you have it. Would the Bush Administration sink the Libby case
by refusing to declassify? In an instant.
Especially if they knew the judge in the case would play ball and dismiss.
And would he? Don't make me laugh more. It hurts too much.
He is sitting on the case, by arrangement, precisely so that he
can dismiss using the ol' tried and trusted 'North Gambit.'
Because that's always been the gameplan. The Libby case is a fake.
Note that Judge Reggie Walton is presiding over the Libby case.
And so, ponder the implications of this:
Walton was appointed to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by
President Reagan from 1981 to 1989. And by President George
H. W. Bush from 1991 to 2001.
He was nominated as a United States District Judge for the District of
Columbia on October 29, 2001, by President George W. Bush Link
Grab a load of that, and get your bets down with the bookies.
And it gets worse. Far worse.
GOODNIGHT JON BOY
Reggie Walton is the judge who handled the Stephen Hatfill anthrax case.
In March, 2004, Walton granted the FBI's request to postpone Hatfill's
defamation suit, claiming that the investigation was in a sensitive phase.
Which is a bit of a sick joke, as the FBI's investigation has always
been in a "sensitive" phase. Just like all other government Ops.
And it was Walton who upheld the government's right to state secrets in
the Sibel Edmonds case! Another contrived 'scandal' which went nowhere.
Does this guy turn up in all the right places, or what? When the Establishment
run these kind of Ops, they need a judge who is a safe pair of hands.
Or to put it another way: they need a judge who is in on it.
But, now you are in on it too.
But this is not just about Walton. Not by a long shot. He's just one player.
Already, there is enough here that, even in their own terms, the CIA Fakes
should be sounding alarm bells about Walton's presence in the Libby
case --rather than blindly cheerleading the chances of Cheney's and
Libby's downfall.
The reason they are not being up front, is that you are suppposed to be
sucked into yet another fruitless substitute for effective political opposition
to the Washington elite and their international corporate buddies.
And the Fakes' job is to make sure you are.
But they are not the only ones on the job. And there are other jobs too.
Nobody is drawing out the barely hidden links. But we are.
RAT'S NEST 2
Here are the links nobody wants to highlight, because they give the game(s) away.
Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Libby, handled the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Another, shall
we say, "sensitive" case.
And if you accept our proposition that the Neocons are programmed fall guys,
then you might deem it significant that it is Fitzgerald who spearheaded
the downfall of Lord Conrad Black from his chairmanship of the
Neocon-ridden Hollinger Group - of which Richard Perle is a director.
Like Walton, Fitzgerald pops up in all the right places.
But, again this is not just about those two political hacks. Let's plow on.
Representing Sibel Edmonds in that "State Secrets" gag order case
presided over by Walton was long-time, legal hack for disgrunled CIA
officers -Mark Zaid. If you are on the outs with the Agency, then Zaid is
your man.
On the other hand, if you are pretending to be on the outs with the CIA,
Mark is definitely your man.
In the case of such tried-and-trusted ploys for establishing some flimsy
street cred as an "opponent" of the CIA, the last thing you, or the agency
need is a lawyer who might take the whole thing too seriously and actually
expose things the Agency might not want you to think you had "found out"
anyway (-as part of the deception).
Much better to have a pet lawyer, who can huff and puff with the best of them
but blow nobody's house down in the process. And what better cover to
use to pose as a whistleblower than to be conveniently silenced by the
government -with the help of a CIA lawyer and a Bush judge.
Sibel would love to spill the beans on Mohammed Atta. Really, she would!
But unfortunately she can't. Go figure.
Here's Zaid, commenting on the gag order Walton imposed on Edmonds:
| Quote: | FBI Whistleblower Edmonds Files New Lawsuit - March 17, 2005
"The FBI has done nothing but cover up its own incompetence and wrongdoing throughout its efforts to unconscionably
and unlawfully silence Ms. Edmonds through excessive secrecy," said Mark S. Zaid.
http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=5233 |
Zaid is getting good at those kind of comments. He gets practice, you see.
Because the exact same MO applies in another high-profile case he is handling.
Here's Zaid again:
| Quote: | National Security Watch: Disquieted whistle-blowers
By Kevin Whitelaw 10/11/05
One of the biggest names of the conference never even uttered a word. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer is the military intelligence operative who recently went public with a controversial claim that a year before September 11, his top-secret task force "Able Danger" was able to identify the man who later turned out to be the lead hijacker as being connected to al Qaeda.
"Tony is not allowed to talk," Zaid said. "He is effectively gagged from talking. He is gagged from talking to Congress."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051011/11natsec.htm |
Like Sibel, Tony Schaffer would love to spill the beans on Mohammed Atta.
Really, he would! But unfortunately he can't. Go figure.
How many more want to tell us all about Atta, but are gagged?
And will Mark Zaid represent then all? Maybe his yellow pages
advertizing should read "Atta Gag Orders a Speciaity."
Maybe that should read "Atta Gag Orders an Assignment."
...AND IF IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK....
Let's step back and take another look at the way a far too cosy crew keep
popping up in these related issues.
1993 WTC Bombing
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.
Neocon Black
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting Conrad Black.
Neocon Libby
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting 'Scooter' Libby.
Reggie Walton as presiding judge.
9/11 Anthrax
Reggie Walton as Hatfill case presiding judge.
9/11 Mohammed Atta / FBI
Mark Zaid representing Sibel Edmonds.
Reggie Walton as presiding judge.
9/11 Mohammed Atta / Pentagon
Mark Zaid representing Tony Shaffer.
Now, let me put it to you that all these are either sensitive cases the
government wants handled the right way, or intelligence operations the
Agency wants handled the right way -or the intersection of the two.
Let me put it to you that the people involved in the intelligence operations
are run/employed by the CIA. A cozy crew, who can run a tight ship.
Let me put it to you that if PlameGate is a contrived scandal, then Valerie
Plame is not the only CIA agent involved. Outsiders do NOT get to play a
part in such high-level Ops. Who knows what a real journalist might do.
Or a real prosecutor or judge, for that matter. PlameGate is stacked with
players who each know exactly what to do, and when.
Let me put it to you that top-quality agents with good street/media cred
don't grow on trees. And so, for key moves you reuse the same personnel
and simply rely on the Fake alternative media to fail to draw attention to
the fact the same players keep coming up.
Like birds of a feather, they stick together.
Finally, let me put it to you that the failure of any other reporter to detail
these links to you is clear confirmation of our warning in August of last year
that the CIA are deeply entrenched in the alternative and 'conspiracy' media,
and they effectively run the 9/11 movement.
Enough already. I have laid the facts out clearly.
Take a leaf out of Reggie Walton's book...
Now, you be the Judge.
Last edited by Fintan on Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:05 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
heiho1
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| General Lee wrote: |
Fintan why do you say Haupt personally invented LIHOP/MIHOP? I heard everyone talking about that especially you. Why shy away from it now?
|
I have heard Nico say this in person a few times. I live in the NYC area and I know that Nico and many other 9/11 researchers agree that Nico created the LIHOP/MIHOP divide. The jury is still out on whether or not that divide is at all *beneficial* to the movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
General Lee
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LIHOP and MIHOP = Same thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
General Lee
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Location: California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2679
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First off, Fintan - thanks more than I can say for the info and insight. I consider you an invaluable resource here.
Secondly - the only thing I take umbrage with in your rants is this seeming notion that anyone who doesn't comform exactly to your takes on 9/11 is "CIA."
If I may take an extreme example to make a silly point - there are hundreds of million here in the U.S. that don't see anything wrong with the official story. I guarantee they're not all "CIA." They're either uninformed or misinformed, or just stupid (or GOP rednecks).
I just don't see this issue as black and white as you do. There are many grays, and I'm not talking Roswell.
I do think your political analysis is right on, as I said before. I'm a life-long Democrat, but I firmly believe John Kerry kept totally silent about the vote fraud simply because he used the same Diebold machinery to remove Howard Dean from the primaries after Iowa. And yes, Hillary is as globalist as Bill, and totally tee'd up for the Oval Office. If I could find a good bookmaker in Vegas taking odds on the '08 election, I'd put everything I had on her right now.
You don't seem to answer direct questions here on the blog, but I'll ask one again anyway: how is it possible for someone who's trying to uncover the truth about the building implosions on 9/11 to be "working the other side", i.e. shilling for the G8 or the U.S. intel or the globalists or whatever? Isn't this information critical to be kept underground?
Any response will be appreciated.
_________________
I stand for truth and justice. I used to add "American Way" to that, before I realized that latter has nothing to do with the previous two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkwind
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 567
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: A different Point of View |
|
|
OK, rumpl4skn, let me make an attempt to take on your comments. BTW – your nick is crass and funny. This gives me permission to make a crude analogy in hope of allowing you some time to rephrase your main question. Let me first say that I doubt Fintan will endorse my analogy but, here it goes.
No joke, I think it’s great that you are a discerning listener/reader of “alternative” news! With that said, we are now on the scoreboard … discerning listener – 1, sheeple – 1,000,000. Now let’s look at the “alternative” media from the point of view of the sheeple. From their somewhat lazy point of view, this whole mess is a mixture of unsubstantiated conspiracy and goofy “page 6” stories. How much fluff do you have to wade through to get some useful facts? Can’t they just get that from the hypno-tube? And don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of facts to be found, you just have to search for ‘em.
Picture the “alternative” media as a very large pile of steaming dog shit. Somewhere buried in the pile is a Tic Tac breath mint. How many times are you willing to stick your face in the pile hoping to come out with fresh breath??
If the “source” of information presents his/her facts in the above manner, who is being served by that? Surely not the sheeple, so these sources might as well be part of the organized MIC subversive, disinfo process. And sadly regarding the 911 story, all we really can prove is that the government’s story is another large pile of steaming dog shit (with another hidden Tic Tak, … etc.).
I think Fintan has posed a VERY important question, who is in this thing for the “truth”, universal or individual, and who is contributing to the ever increasing pile of steaming dog shit. Your guess is as good as mine …
One more point I forgot to make is, because these hacks have painted us into an information corner, with their relentless nonsense, we are forced to hold ourselves up to a much higher level of scrutiny. Forgiveness is not easily given to our past, present and future mistakes.
- Hawk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moylan
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I might stick my oar in: I think Fintan's analysis is fundamentally sound. You ask why it is a question of shills taking the risk of running various conspiracy theories about 9-11, when this could bring down their entire house of cards.
Well first off, these people are smart, and second, they have a lot of experience in managing perception. Fighting wars these days is 10% actual bombing, shooting, etc., but 90% disinformation. I hope you would not be prepared to ask whether much of the so-called "left" has made it its business to collaborate with the State (as there really is only one State in the world which counts for anything): the Gladio operation was not only about running right-wing death squads, but also about creating a phantom "resistance" to divert people's energies, confuse their thinking, split them into factions, so that half the elites' work was already done. The point of the "organised left" as officially manifested in trade unions and charities is to prevent people from joining the dots, from thinking politically, and so to keep them confused, afraid, and powerless. A common slogan in certain "Western democracies" these days is "It's going to happen anyway; there's nothing you can do." It's no mistake that the so-called left subscribes to this defeatism, because their propaganda is, covertly but solidly, and in varying degrees, based on the presuppositions officially laid out by the ruling elites. It's the "consensus" that political types keep telling us is so desirable. And for all their noise and bull****, the official left is concerned, above all else, with keeping the State intact.
The same goes for 9-11. Those responsible weren't waiting around twiddling their thumbs hoping no one would work out that buildings don't just fall down because of fire. They had their intelligence operatives ready with their briefs, and when websites started appearing questioning the official story, the intelligence agents jumped aboard. Their method is not to insist on the official line and construct arguments to prove it is plausible, but to construct a sophisticated distraction to protect the real culprits, and hide the real explanations.
So that is how some of the loudest and most insistent voices "questioning" the 9-11 story can be on the other side. The method is to encourage people to concentrate on details, distract them from what matters, namely why. Everyone who is honest with themselves knows buildings can't be brought down by airlines hijacked by boxcutter-wielding terrorists with a few weeks' training in flight simulators: so why do the fakes keep going on about how impossible it is?
Because it sounds good, because you've always wanted to be told that Kennedy wasn't shot by a man who couldn't even hold a rifle straight; but analysis of the reasons, the context, the structure of the plan? No chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| moylan wrote: |
So that is how some of the loudest and most insistent voices "questioning" the 9-11 story can be on the other side. The method is to encourage people to concentrate on details, distract them from what matters, namely why. Everyone who is honest with themselves knows buildings can't be brought down by airlines hijacked by boxcutter-wielding terrorists with a few weeks' training in flight simulators: so why do the fakes keep going on about how impossible it is?
Because it sounds good, because you've always wanted to be told that Kennedy wasn't shot by a man who couldn't even hold a rifle straight; but analysis of the reasons, the context, the structure of the plan? No chance. |
Nice.
*applause*
Well said. I'd have to say I agree. Using certain elements of the truth as a distraction. Very 'True Lies'.
And you didn't even have to use the word 'steamy.'  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkwind
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 567
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: Whats in a word? |
|
|
Sorry jerry but the word is still accurate. "Steamy" is the best way to describe the vaporous by-product of most "alternative" media arguments, used as proof of concept. And I do not see a point in the future where people acknowledge the "truth as lies". If you were raised in any form of religious environment, only one side of the paradigm uses "truth and lies" interchangeably and he isn't on the so-called "good" side of "truth, justice, and the American way" ... bla, bla, bla.
Good points though ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2679
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jerry Fletcher wrote: | | moylan wrote: |
So that is how some of the loudest and most insistent voices "questioning" the 9-11 story can be on the other side. The method is to encourage people to concentrate on details, distract them from what matters, namely why. Everyone who is honest with themselves knows buildings can't be brought down by airlines hijacked by boxcutter-wielding terrorists with a few weeks' training in flight simulators: so why do the fakes keep going on about how impossible it is?
Because it sounds good, because you've always wanted to be told that Kennedy wasn't shot by a man who couldn't even hold a rifle straight; but analysis of the reasons, the context, the structure of the plan? No chance. |
Nice.
*applause*
Well said. I'd have to say I agree. Using certain elements of the truth as a distraction. Very 'True Lies'.
And you didn't even have to use the word 'steamy.' |
Fisrtly, thanks for the replies.
Okay. I suppose my only answer is that you guys are on another plane from me. 
When I speak to friends about 9/11, I consistently get "You're a paranoid lunatic. That could never happen in America." I show them "Loose Change 2" and suddenly some of them start to take notice.
So, how in the hell is this aiding the perps? Without some of these visual aids I use - most of which you guys describe as dogshit - helping to obscure the issue, I'd never get them half-way to first base. No, they're not ready to buy the G8 setup, but they first have to notice that they've been lied to, about something. Anything.
Are you sure you're not micro-managing this issue? Aren't you assuming everyone is as brilliant as you guys that they can dig 7 layers into the subtext and come up with confluences of truth? I'll tell you something - if the 9/11 CoverUp Revelation is ever going to get legs, it's going to have to appeal to the little guy, or you may as well not even bother to bring it up.
I spend a lot of time on the Average Joe message boards, just trying to get them to pay the slightest attention to this shit. And you know what happens? Real shills show up, guys from DIA, CIA, the Rendon Group, etc. Paid cocksuckers who get paid to shill, to misdirect, to disinform, argue long-debunked issues. Now THOSE guys are the bad guys, in my book. Not ALex Jones. So, you guys think www.globalresearch.ca is a "CIA fake" site? Then what's your take on this horseshit: www.911myths.com This is the new darling of the shill sites. It's awful, and every shill that comes in where I hang out links directly to it. Christ - they're even still denying the Kennedy op, as if it's the newest directive towards the masses: "Don't let them make the connection to the JFK thing, or we're fucked."
You claim global research is a crock because they "go on and on about details." ????? Fuck YES they go on about details - these morons in the general public AREN'T GETTING IT. Before you give a speech to the average crowd, you have to whack them upside the head with a 2 x 4. I don't know who you guys hang out with, but it seems to be physics majors and structural engineers. I can see how you could argue details and subtleties with that crowd, but if Joe Six-Pack doesn't start to buy into this, we might as well roll up the carpets and stamp G8 on our foreheads. Going on and on about details is not always a sign of evil - sometimes you have to reach the mentally-challenged, just because of their sheer numbers, and sometimes they only get things with sufficient repetition.
Now, you'll probably say that your discussions are above and beyond the things I deal with, and you're probably right. But teaching a convention of eggheads that there's ONE guy who can be trusted when it comes to 9/11 isn't gonna get it done, believe me. If the masses don't see it on the evening news, it didn't happen. I've heard Fintan say, "Turn off your fucking TV set." Yeah, now there's a viable plan. It's certainly true, in terms of it's honesty of approach, but what fucking chance is there that it will happen??? What late-night coke binge party was responsible for that plan of attack? Are you guys aware of the reality of life for the average person? Or is the theory - if it doesn't come out exactly the way we see it, then it's better left in the dark. I don't get it, I truly don't.
As I said, you guys are obviously, enormously smarter than I. And I didn't come in here to argue, I truly want to understand what's going on. But usually the description is cryptic to me, at best.
All I've learned so far is: "Don't stick your head in steamy dogshit." And it's possible I may have known that beforehand.
_________________
I stand for truth and justice. I used to add "American Way" to that, before I realized that latter has nothing to do with the previous two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2679
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In addendum:
Let me ask this - do you actually think there are enough people visiting 9/11 websites that the 9/11 Perps need to control a percentage of them?
I get the feeling you guys think there are tens of millions of people who are into 9/11 now, and if the Perps can misdirect them towards - whatever you claim they're being misdirected towards - they will be victorious. To me, THAT is an alternative viewpoint of the highest naivete'.
I'm sorry - I seriously doubt there's more than half of 1 per cent of Americans who have ever even heard there are questions about 9/11, and half of those are sure that it's all just a bunch of paranoid lunatics who spend too much time on the internet(s) because they believe they may have been abducted in a past life.
Secondly - those people protesting in downtown NYC with the "Reopen 911" banners. I'll bet you most of them are investing belief in the same sites you call "CIA fakes." Are you going to discard those people? Are they so far off-base that you can call them fakes without cutting the 9/11 awareness in half? I beg to differ.
Much of what Fintan rants about makes absolute, 100% sense to me, particularly the electoral stuff about the left vs. right professional wrestling distraction. And I'm very close to buying into what goes on here, but I seriously need to know your answers to these questions, if you please.
_________________
I stand for truth and justice. I used to add "American Way" to that, before I realized that latter has nothing to do with the previous two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkwind
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 567
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: Example |
|
|
OK, this is getting tedious ... I like our passion though. Let me give you a real example of how endorsement of some "popular" sites will bite you in the ass when you promote them. I will use Alex Jones because this is his MO. Let say that through whatever method, you finally convinced a person to listen to Alex Jones because he is the "man". This new convert can only listen to him via podcast/AM/CB/shortwave or what ever the fuck, while driving to get "McPoison" for lunch. During the whole listening time, our "man" Jones is scaring the shit out of a caller because she has lost custody of her child. Our "man" Jones, proceeds to go into a 15 minute rant about how the child could have been kidnapped and is on a plane to Saudi Arabia for a child sex ring. Now how do you look to your new convert?
There is nothing wrong with passing around links to collaborated information and if you suffer "blowback" ... so what ... at least you planted a seed. The moral of the story is to invest time in the "seeds" that will yield fruit.
I just know that this did not satisfy you ... only time can give you the wisdom to know that tactic works in your environment.
PS "Physics/Engineering friends???" If they can't open a "can of whoop-ass" with it, my associates are not interested!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2679
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: it's the term "CIA fake" |
|
|
| hawkwind wrote: | OK, this is getting tedious ... I like our passion though. Let me give you a real example of how endorsement of some "popular" sites will bite you in the ass when you promote them. I will use Alex Jones because this is his MO. Let say that through whatever method, you finally convinced a person to listen to Alex Jones because he is the "man". This new convert can only listen to him via podcast/AM/CB/shortwave or what ever the fuck, while driving to get "McPoison" for lunch. During the whole listening time, our "man" Jones is scaring the shit out of a caller because she has lost custody of her child. Our "man" Jones, proceeds to go into a 15 minute rant about how the child could have been kidnapped and is on a plane to Saudi Arabia for a child sex ring. Now how do you look to your new convert?
There is nothing wrong with passing around links to collaborated information and if you suffer "blowback" ... so what ... at least you planted a seed. The moral of the story is to invest time in the "seeds" that will yield fruit.
I just know that this did not satisfy you ... only time can give you the wisdom to know that tactic works in your environment.
PS "Physics/Engineering friends???" If they can't open a "can of whoop-ass" with it, my associates are not interested! |
Okay, now this gives me some insight.
Firstly, you guys do hang out with the extreme end of hipness in the globalist world, who are light-years beyond the arguments that "something happened" on 9/11 that wasn't what the government told us. I don't - I live and work with rednecks who still have W The President stickers on their trucks, and still think he was "the right man for the job", the job of course, killing stinkin' A-rabs. Besides my ideological differences, these guys are eons from even seeing what's wrong with the administration, let alone what's being done globally. You mention "CIA" and they look at you like you have 2 heads.
Secondly, I would never send anyone to infowars or prisonplanet for 9/11 stuff - at least, I wouldn't give them the url and turn them loose there. Too much wild stuff for the uninitiated. I will ocasionally reference an article or video link if it's well done.
But is that the explanation - that because not everything on that website is plausible or meant for mass consumption, that Jones is thereby "a CIA fake"? That's what I'm having a problem with - this general, wide-paintbrush accusation that certain people are exactly that - the bad guys. Do you really believe that Alex Jones is an actual CIA disinformation agent? Or is this simply an extreme put-down, generated out of disgust for what you perceive as his unnecessarily hokey outlook on all things conspiratorial?
This is the assumption that I'm having problems with. Not to mention globalresearch and all the others in that list of "fakes" that are posted up and slammed here.
I think Alex Jones is an extreme case, but some of the sites listed here as fakes seem like not fake at all. Perhaps a little misguided, or a little intimidated by their corporate owners, etc. Not as pure as you'd like to see, but not deliberate fakes to me, but then you'd probably say I'm naive. And if you're going to say "if they are under corporate control, they aren't to be considered." Yes, in a perfect world, but this is reality. And if 60 Minutes one night skirts the edges of 9/11, I will applaud. I don't care how juvenile or low-level the information is. It has to start somewhere. And you know - in the event any MSM outlets ever gets close - the first dribs and drabs of it will be ridiculously bad. But I live in a world where if I simply get people to accept the possibility that their government will lie to them, it's a huge victory. This is the United States of Amnesia.
No, I certainly don't buy everything on every site, not even this one. But how easily certain info outlets cross the line from "wrong" about things to "deliberate disinformation" here is beyond me.
If you guys are simply trying to convince me that there is erroneous info on some sites, there's no need. I'm certainly hip to that. And therefore, I'm trying to convince you that the implied overkill of labeling them all CIA is having the opposite effect. It instead may sometime make me question you and your motives, not their's.
Just FYI, okay? That's all.
p.s. Thank you. And, btw, if explaining this to someone like me is "tedious"... what great debate am I taking you guys away from tonight? What's hot on the 9/11 list? News on this subject is doled out with a toothpick these days. I spend many "tedious" sessions myself, working over pinheads too stupid to find their own heads with both hands and a roadmap, trying to get them to see what's right in front of them. It's either important enough to put time into, or it isn't. And there are many levels to this awkening. Don't belittle the low-level grunt work. I guarantee none of us woke up on Sept. 11th, 2001, and said, "Holy shit! Did you see that radio-controlled 737 from the G8 perpetrators just hit the North Tower?" We all had to start somewhere.
_________________
I stand for truth and justice. I used to add "American Way" to that, before I realized that latter has nothing to do with the previous two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moylan
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not "tedious" at all...
I would just say that if these perception managers were "obvious" about what they do, they would not fool anyone. The danger posed by a 9-11 people's movement is what these people fear. They may express contempt for the electorate and treat them as idiots, but there is a political purpose for this: to demoralise, to depict the consequences of expressing opposition to Operation Overwhelming Force. But the fact is: these criminals are in terror of their lives that people will start waking up.
The propaganda is not aimed at those who have a vested interest in mindlessly repeating propaganda slogans about how subverting democracy in other countries is done in the name of encouraging democracy. It is aimed at those who are confused, demoralised, afraid. Though I think the film is dreadful, an analogy with the Matrix may be of use here: the Matrix only needs these programs for those who believe there's something wrong with the world, not for those who are perfectly happy and oblivious in their cocoons.
Latin America has been the happy hunting ground for the US this century, in terms of propaganda and suppression of resistance, and particularly in the use of proxies and provacateurs. Here in Ireland (Europe's own private Latin America) we have a State broadcasting service called RTE, and at the best of times it is little better than an arm of Government. So when Bush paid his royal visit here, we had joyous propaganda about "moving forward" and "forgetting the past", the "past" being the ongoing use of one of our airports as a US military stopover on the way to Iraq and for CIA planes bringing kidnap victims to lovely places like Uzbekistan and Egypt. A study of RTE's perception management tactics would be salutary for anyone who wants to understand how propaganda works. The reason that the methods are comparatively sophisticated is that there is a strong tradition of resistance here which the loyalists (Bush-Blair loyalists I mean) both fear and despise, and this has to be taken into account.
One example: the report about Haiti's stolen election. Aristide, we were told, "resigned" from office and "fled the country", as opposed to being ousted by a US-backed coup, one which is being endorsed by the UN. Now Haiti is off the agenda in favour of Uncle Tom Annan making strident pronouncements about Guantanamo Bay, which the White House are treating with the contempt they deserve. Message: the UN is Good, but at the same time the UN is Powerless. Just ignore the UN troops occupying Haiti, shooting civilians dead and dumping thousands of ballots because the wrong candidate won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2679
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moylan wrote: | It's not "tedious" at all...
I would just say that if these perception managers were "obvious" about what they do, they would not fool anyone. The danger posed by a 9-11 people's movement is what these people fear. They may express contempt for the electorate and treat them as idiots, but there is a political purpose for this: to demoralise, to depict the consequences of expressing opposition to Operation Overwhelming Force. |
Well, I'll have to take your word on that. I don't see that at all in the websites I frequent. They are hopeful, supportive and encouraging that people spread the word. Granted, some of that is to sell videos. : ) But we all have domain hosting to pay for, and some of them have large bandwidth charges to absorb as well.
Not to be continually tedious, but - there is a concerted effort in the low-levels of the Truth Movement wherein I see government shills selling this LIHOP scenario with great fervor. They have no problem calling Bush the great ideological Satan, but he or his admin most certainly did not perpetrate any crime, other than "allowing" others' crimes to happen. That I definitely see as an ongoing sales campaign, and it is far more obvious to me than the picture you guys paint.
Now, I did read (or hear) the analogy here about the 2 hateful hardware store owners who turned out to be brothers, so that concept of faux-rivalry to generate interest is in my head, and it makes sense. Heavyweight prizefights are not about finding out who is the best fighter, they're about selling tickets and adverts. But the phony-construct argument I plainly see is this LIHOP/MIHOP argument, and it does generate much passion in the forums, as it's intended to, I suppose.
| Quote: | | Though I think the film is dreadful, an analogy with the Matrix may be of use here: the Matrix only needs these programs for those who believe there's something wrong with the world, not for those who are perfectly happy and oblivious in their cocoons. |
Okay, I'm going to have to rent The Matrix, I guess. Too many references to things of which I'm clueless. I did see the original back when it came out, but I may have been stoned in prep for the cool FX.  I honestly don't remember anything about the story line, and you've convinced me there was one.
| Quote: | | One example: the report about Haiti's stolen election. Aristide, we were told, "resigned" from office and "fled the country", as opposed to being ousted by a US-backed coup, one which is being endorsed by the UN. Now Haiti is off the agenda in favour of Uncle Tom Annan making strident pronouncements about Guantanamo Bay, which the White House are treating with the contempt they deserve. Message: the UN is Good, but at the same time the UN is Powerless. Just ignore the UN troops occupying Haiti, shooting civilians dead and dumping thousands of ballots because the wrong candidate won. |
My gf's stepfather regularly works in Haiti, building schoolrooms out of old shipping containers, and I believe he would corroborate your take on it. In private, anyway, he would. People who speak up in opposition to the status quo tend to "suddenly get depressed and kill themselves" down there.
_________________
I stand for truth and justice. I used to add "American Way" to that, before I realized that latter has nothing to do with the previous two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
