It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Disinfo Alert - Warning, this site is full of it...
page: 4share:
Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by falcon
I Wish I could have seen your site when it was up. Are you the guy from the "aviary"?
No I used to run www.floydreport.com until gov came in and well its a long story from what they told me "as soon as we get the power to arrest you, you will be the first one picked up". Needless to say for now im still here, the media and the gov's failure to inform the public wouldnt take place if people were given what they wanted in the first place then you would have a need for snooping reporters digging up government secrets.
And for the record why I posted top secret and other things on my sites I can name a number of sites not excluding cryptome.org... as being alot more for what I would call damaging to government secrets then I ever was I was just targeted because I was one of the real activist having a real effect on the system.
Most of the older members here remember scandles that I have exposed at the cost of own life I should be dead considering all the things ive exposed here and some of the people I used to have on the air stirred the pot enough as it is.
Why the government and media may not like real reporters like myself either digging into there past to find out there drug use the annual pay outs to keep quiet or uncovering a covert activity like drug running in and outside the u.s. and outer countries that's too bad. Dont run drugs and I and others wont have to take pictures and make them public to call congressional hearings on groups like haliburton.
You could argue that if it wasnt for a gumshoe then someone behind a major news desk couldnt steal the research and information the gumshoe dug up to make a watered down version of the truth but that doesnt stop people from digging up the facts on there own and making up there own minds about what is real.
You can only silence so many people and reporters before you have a public back lash and that is what Bush Clinton and sadly im sorry to say Mr. Obama is about to find out. Why people might not have my website and radio show anymore to get out the things I used to cover on the air there are still avenues like ats to get out that information.
The reason I dont post anything secret or top secret here anymore is ats nearly got shut down the lastime I posted anything here like that and there are alot of groups in washington and elsewhere that would like to see sites like this shut down.
Giving them a avenue or cause or evidence to do so isnt going to do anyone any good ive looked at en.wikipedia.org... and I know some of the people behind the start up of that website any anyone that knows what is really going on knows why that site and others like it are poping up all over the place every day.
No matter if any gov likes it or not the highest level agency NSA or what people know about as being the highest level agency the NSA already in the last 10 years has had a full system shut down 2 times and the first time they were in the dark for 4 to 5 days.
I was suprised when Micheal Haden admited that before 9-11 NSA was blind in the dark he didnt however mention about the other time it happened. I know of 2 times in 10 years Im sure NSA could have had more then two full system failures.
And if the highest level agency that people know about that exists cant even keep its computers running that keep the secrets of this country safe then that should show people the scale of what were really dealing with here. Secrets and other information is going to get out and come out no matter if the NSA and other agencies like it or not.
And no matter how many disinfo agents get a pay check to discredit or derail people from finding out the truth or a subject matter it wont stop someone or some group thats commited to finding out. John Young who opperates cryptome.org gets letters from lawyers and firms everyday take that information off your site or else.
He still opperates and still has his site up and most of the time when that happens the groups of people telling him to take the information he has down he exposes a little more about the group usually starting with where the people live that sent the letter there e-mail address's, the home phone cell phone and other personal information they didnt want out why trying to do something they probley shouldnt have been doing in the first place.
I have to agree with the CIA and NSA though he's border line when it comes to topicgraphic maps of there agencies but to defend Mr Young no offense to the CIA, NSA and other agencies if you dont want someone finding out where you work dont take a picture of your office.
Ive had people in all agencies for years ask me questions where the "$%&#" did you get ahold of that you @$$ thats top secret information. Compared to the amount of declassifed documents that U.S. Gov itself has disclosed about its own opperations and compared to the other list of sites I could name that are out there besides ats my site only had about 6,000 articles before it was yanked.
I was just one site and out of people that I know that were shut down under bush, the EFF electronic frontier foundation published a list of websites and reporters arrested for writing articles or publishing news stories that gov didnt want out and compared to my former one site of 6,000 + news stories there are alot more people that got it before I did and alot of reporters that just flat died for information to get out along with agents for that matter.
The war continues.
Viva la francia!.
Falcon
Originally posted by rich23
"I attended the Seattle WTO protest and saw them practicing in riot gear."
Is the "them" of that sentence the protesters or the cops?
There were about 70,000 people in the streets including students, environmentalists,
labor organizers and a helluva lot more.
On the day of the event the taxis were on strike and one was unable to get a bus out of town, I had to walk a considerable ways out of town to find a bus on the fringe and not knowing anything about Seattle, of course, I tried to ask a friendly policeman.
FAT CHANCE.
These blokes were lined up with 20 in a row with rigid face masks and shields and they walked in a straight line all raising their foot at the same time doing the GOOSE STEP and none would answer my question
HOW DOES ONE LEAVE THE CITY? It looked dreadfully like line ups in movies and documentaries about Nazi Germany.
We ran into several tear gas episodes. I will never forget the woman with briefcase and business suit trying to get away, bent over in pain, heaving having been tear gassed.
I had been tear gassed before at the march on the Pentagon in D.C. during the
Vietnam War protests but had not gotten so close to the substance.
reply to post by falcon
Thanks for your reply. I've done a brief search on what's left of your website - linked through other places - and I've learned a lot.
Again, the idea of that little turd Dunne calling you CIA... while we're on the subject, and to keep the topic vaguely going, I've noticed another thing:
He's starting an "independent" investigation of 9/11 from scratch.
So he basically wants to reinvent the wheel. Pointless... unless he's CIA.
Anyway... I didn't know that GHWB was a board member of Eli Lilly. Interesting. I've also come across - basically through following links from a search for floydreport.com - people who say that in order to derail the sixties revolution, Lilly made all kinds of drugs freely available at festivals. Basically people who "didn't fit the average festivalgoer profile" - often bikers - would show up and distribute all kinds of off-the-shelf psychoactives which would have a markedly different effect from the then current preference for acid, marijuana and mushrooms.
It's also been an insight into what I think of as the New Prohibition - how certain well-placed people are today's bootleggers.
Back to Dunne - interesting that his site claims cryptome is CIA. Inevitable, really.
Care to elaborate?
Thanks for your reply. I've done a brief search on what's left of your website - linked through other places - and I've learned a lot.
Again, the idea of that little turd Dunne calling you CIA... while we're on the subject, and to keep the topic vaguely going, I've noticed another thing:
He's starting an "independent" investigation of 9/11 from scratch.
So he basically wants to reinvent the wheel. Pointless... unless he's CIA.
Anyway... I didn't know that GHWB was a board member of Eli Lilly. Interesting. I've also come across - basically through following links from a search for floydreport.com - people who say that in order to derail the sixties revolution, Lilly made all kinds of drugs freely available at festivals. Basically people who "didn't fit the average festivalgoer profile" - often bikers - would show up and distribute all kinds of off-the-shelf psychoactives which would have a markedly different effect from the then current preference for acid, marijuana and mushrooms.
It's also been an insight into what I think of as the New Prohibition - how certain well-placed people are today's bootleggers.
Back to Dunne - interesting that his site claims cryptome is CIA. Inevitable, really.
anyone that knows what is really going on knows why that site and others like it are poping up all over the place every day.
Care to elaborate?
reply to post by Doc Velocity
I think I may have misunderestimated you, doc...
For a while I worked on a cruise ship out of Galveston. I had to bite my tongue most of the time talking to Texans (except for a few people, invariably black folks, who seemed to have some grasp of what was really going on).
Every week there would be complaints in the book, asking that the on-board "Communist News Network" be replaced with "fair and balanced" Fox. I even got into a conversation with a woman who used the term "yellow press" to describe most of the US media (that section that were somewhere to the left of Gengis Khan). I decided it wouldn't be productive to point out how the phrase was originally used.
But, of course, the MSM is hopeless. One of my friends on board was a Polish musician. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, he said to me that what was going on was like a much slicker version of the crap Russia would pull when they were about to start something like Afghanistan. I remember seeing the words "America Strikes BACK!" on a permanent banner across the bottom of the screen during the CNN war coverage, and thinking, "don't you mean, 'America LASHES OUT!'?"
I think I may have misunderestimated you, doc...
For a while I worked on a cruise ship out of Galveston. I had to bite my tongue most of the time talking to Texans (except for a few people, invariably black folks, who seemed to have some grasp of what was really going on).
Every week there would be complaints in the book, asking that the on-board "Communist News Network" be replaced with "fair and balanced" Fox. I even got into a conversation with a woman who used the term "yellow press" to describe most of the US media (that section that were somewhere to the left of Gengis Khan). I decided it wouldn't be productive to point out how the phrase was originally used.
But, of course, the MSM is hopeless. One of my friends on board was a Polish musician. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, he said to me that what was going on was like a much slicker version of the crap Russia would pull when they were about to start something like Afghanistan. I remember seeing the words "America Strikes BACK!" on a permanent banner across the bottom of the screen during the CNN war coverage, and thinking, "don't you mean, 'America LASHES OUT!'?"
reply to post by EarthShine
Funnily enough, I was only reading today that the Seattle riot police laced their tear gas with methylene chloride, which is a carcinogen. Unfortunately, because it's available as a domestic product, they can't be prosecuted for using potentially lethal chemical weapons. Disgusting.
Funnily enough, I was only reading today that the Seattle riot police laced their tear gas with methylene chloride, which is a carcinogen. Unfortunately, because it's available as a domestic product, they can't be prosecuted for using potentially lethal chemical weapons. Disgusting.
hmmm
the title of this thread seems to be doubly misleading in a way
the start of the title states
Disinfo Alert
then this part separated by a -
Warning this site is full of it
my comments
on disinfo, hmm, i am think 99% of the stuff here there and everywhere else is not worthy of even remembering, so really what exactly is dis info we are talking about???
and on this site is full of it... why yes, it sure is!! Full of Information, same as this forum here, and many others, so... i as a member of that forum at break for news... feel it is my duty to ask
how long people are supposed to spend at a site before thinking they should alert others?
i have been there and here and well, seems to me they are into thinking things their way, just like here, not co many cliques there as here... i have been here less then there, yet when i am there i do not miss here, and when i am here i think to mention something there, and did as much, but, there, they already knew what was mentioned here and so there!
cheers!
the title of this thread seems to be doubly misleading in a way
the start of the title states
Disinfo Alert
then this part separated by a -
Warning this site is full of it
my comments
on disinfo, hmm, i am think 99% of the stuff here there and everywhere else is not worthy of even remembering, so really what exactly is dis info we are talking about???
and on this site is full of it... why yes, it sure is!! Full of Information, same as this forum here, and many others, so... i as a member of that forum at break for news... feel it is my duty to ask
how long people are supposed to spend at a site before thinking they should alert others?
i have been there and here and well, seems to me they are into thinking things their way, just like here, not co many cliques there as here... i have been here less then there, yet when i am there i do not miss here, and when i am here i think to mention something there, and did as much, but, there, they already knew what was mentioned here and so there!
cheers!
Originally posted by b4tee4
how long people are supposed to spend at a site before thinking they should alert others?
I'm not generally one to jump to conclusions. However, Dunne "exposes" as fakes a lot of sites I've come to trust over many years. If you read my posts you'll see I have at least some analysis to support my conclusions. He's pretty consistently hypocritical: while saying citizens should take matters into their own hands he derides as disinfo a singularly successful co-operative effort, the history commons, formerly known as co-operative research.
The more I look at the site, the more I find lacking. For example, the whole business about 9/11:The Verdict. It's just ludicrous. People need to press for a proper investigation, but that can only be conducted with subpoena powers.
His "independent investigation" is
- reinventing the wheel
- wasting a lot of time with ludicrous pseudo-legalese (and my degree was in law so I know something about that)
- by their own admission not based on facts that they can verify
Fracturing the movement? Fomenting dissent? Wasting time?
Yes, yes and yes. If he's not being paid by the CIA to do it, they must be rubbing their hands. But for me, it's just too much of a coincidence that the sites he disparages are some of the best I've found.
I should also say that I've yet to come across any occasion where he provides concrete evidence that any of the people he accuses are CIA-inspired. How much do you know about the people he purports to expose? How much do you know about Hopsicker, Ruppert, Sibel Edmonds? Have you checked out their stories for yourself? If not, if you are content for him to smear them, then he's done his work well. I'm trying to undo that work.
He makes a great deal of Amanda Keller retracting her story. If he were genuinely impartial, he'd at least be considering the possibility that she was intimidated into doing that. If the people behind 9/11 are ruthless enough to kill around 3000 US citizens, they wouldn't shrink from doing something like that. Instead, he takes a rather personal, crowing approach:
....Amanda Keller's performance in the filmed interview presented by Hopsicker.... is by now side-splittingly funny. How she managed to keep a straight face throughout, is surely tribute to the iron acting will of a true pro.
Viewed as a piece of straight acting, Keller's performance seems earnest, even heartfelt. But, viewed as a hilarious attempt to paint Atta as a B-movie-style 'Miami Vice' villan, it just gets funnier and funnier the more times you see it. It's a hand-wringing, chain-smoking comedic performance.
Disconnect your emotional buttons. And watch a real pro at work. And save a copy. They can't leave this online. The truth has never been this funny.
From this highly dubious thread.
To his credit, he does link Hopsicker's response. But neither he, nor any of the posters on the thread - none of whom, by the way, seem particularly intelligent or informed, but merely seem to want to cheer Dunne's smugness - address the issues it raises, to wit:
- Hopsicker interviewed several witnesses, including their former landlady, who placed Keller and Atta living together
- it was the Sarasota Herald-Tribune who first reported Keller as Atta's girlfriend
- the source for the story is "an unnamed federal official".
So Dunne would rather believe an unnamed federal official rather than a witness who describes behaviour in Atta decidedly at odds with the official narrative!
I've been looking through the site, and you know what? It's really content-thin. He's good, really good, at raising questions and then not answering them. I've been looking in vain for solid evidence that the people he names are internet fakes. Let me know if you see any.
His emphasis on the G8 is interesting, too. I don't know to what extent the G8 is responsible for 9/11. It's not a theory I've heard elsewhere, and it's not, on its face, a crackpot theory like holographic planes, but it certainly diverts from those within the USG who were almost surely responsible.
i have been there and here and well, seems to me they are into thinking things their way, just like here, not co many cliques there as here... i have been here less then there, yet when i am there i do not miss here, and when i am here i think to mention something there, and did as much, but, there, they already knew what was mentioned here and so there!
Good for them.
Look, you have to make up your own mind on this. All I can say is what I see. I've never accused anyone on this forum of being disinfo agents, though I'm sure there are some, and I have distinct suspicions about one or two particular posters. And if Dunne didn't accuse people of being CIA plants or dupes, I'd have thought little of it. But someone who disses sites I'm sure are reliable while getting people to run in circles...
If you can actually counter any of the arguments I've advanced, say by linking parts of the site where he advances trenchant analysis, then great. I'll be continuing to look through it as long as I can stomach it and will post my views here.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by rich23]
Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by falcon
anyone that knows what is really going on knows why that site and others like it are poping up all over the place every day.
Care to elaborate?
In short no I dont care to elaborate you would have had to have been here when I reported alot of the going on's with the cia leak case and other things that took place between 2004 and 2005. In short theres a turf war going on right now and has been for some time before bush ever took office with renagade opperatives running around all over the place committing espionage here and there doing there best to over throw this and other government's because of what gov did to there lives.
And why its only made the news a few times with cases like Alexander Litvinenko Link
Its far more wide spread then what the news media would report unfortuanaly for them if you have seen the recent tea protests going on take that to the next level with guns and murdered reporters, missing or now dead scientists exc and you get the basic idea.
Hope that helps
Falcon
Originally posted by falcon
guns and murdered reporters, missing or now dead scientists exc and you get the basic idea.
I thought Litvinenko was offed just because he went up against Putin?
However, I've been watching the dead scientitsts thing for a long time. When I was in IT back in the 80s/90s I first noticed a string of bizarre suicides centered mostly around employees of Marconi Avionics, and it's only spread since then.
Funny, I've just been looking at this interview with John Lear and I think he has some interesting things to say about this place.
I am Fintan Dunne, the editor of BreakFornews.com
which is here accused by rich23 of being "disinfo,"
based mostly on the fact that the author trusts some
of the sites I name on our "CIA Fakes" list.
But the case I make is substantial and argued in detail.
In summary:
It's a serious question:
www.breakfornews.com...
It deserves serious consideration.
Let me deal with one issue Rich23 raised: Dan Hopsicker & Amanda Keller.
Rich23 defends Hopsicker, saying his is : "a site that has been particularly
strong on exposing CIA drug deals." So the CIA is involved in drugs?
Gosh, whou'da thunk? Who knew!
We exposed Amanda Keller a full year before she decided that her
boyfriend was NOT after all Mohammed Atta, but "another flight student
not connected to 9/11." In August, 2005 we gave Amanda an award:
Drugs, drugs, drugs. Atta the cokehead. Hopsicker even maintained
that 9/11 was a drug war between Osama and the Bushes. Eh?!?
Then a year later in Sept. 2006 our concerns were validated:
Rich23 defends Hopsicker by saying: "it looks more like she was
pressured to retract than anything else."
Really? So much pressure that it was FIVE YEARS after making her
claims and having them widely publicized that she felt "pressure"??
That doesn't add up. What does add up is that Keller was a decoy who
was flaunted for five years and then slickly pulled out of the frame.
That's just one example of the issues we raise.
Issues deserving more than knee-jerk dismissal.
Unless you LIKE being made fools of by the CIA Fakes....
[edit on 21-3-2009 by BreakForNews]
which is here accused by rich23 of being "disinfo,"
based mostly on the fact that the author trusts some
of the sites I name on our "CIA Fakes" list.
But the case I make is substantial and argued in detail.
In summary:
What if the black-ops/intel agencies covering up 9/11 were
determined to ambush the 9/11 Truth Movement with more
than just a handful of disinfo agents?
What if they wisely decided that such a monstrous crime
required a proportionately large cover-up?
What if they built themselves an anti-government network
years in advance and then used this network to totally control
the agenda and key personalities of the Truth Movement?
It's a serious question:
www.breakfornews.com...
It deserves serious consideration.
Let me deal with one issue Rich23 raised: Dan Hopsicker & Amanda Keller.
Rich23 defends Hopsicker, saying his is : "a site that has been particularly
strong on exposing CIA drug deals." So the CIA is involved in drugs?
Gosh, whou'da thunk? Who knew!
We exposed Amanda Keller a full year before she decided that her
boyfriend was NOT after all Mohammed Atta, but "another flight student
not connected to 9/11." In August, 2005 we gave Amanda an award:
True Lies of 9/11: Amanda & Atta
The 9/11 Minority Report: Part 3
wagnews.blogspot.com...
by Fintan Dunne & KathyMcMahon,
BreakForNews.com 16th August, 2005
And so it is with great honour that we nominate Ms. Amanda Keller,
reputed long-term girlfriend of 9/11 'mastermind', Mohammed Atta for
the award in the category of 'Best Supporting Actress in a 9/11 Coverup.'
If you've been following the story so far, you know that an 'Orgy of
Evidence' was deliberately built into the 9/11 operation, as a
smokescreen. This meticuluously planned evidence has been a fountain of
time-consuming false trails, which has also provided the CIA Internet
Fakes with an array of 'talking points', to fill countless hours of internet
radio, articles, blogs and books. It's been a red herring cornucopia.
Among the most legendary of all these 'discoveries' by internet
researchers, was the tracking down of Amanda Keller, by Daniel
Hopsicker. In an exclusive to-camera interview --at an 'undisclosed
location'-- she paints a stunning portrait of a coc aine-sodden Atta;
strewing money about; partying and meeting shadowy drug contacts in
Key West........
More: wagnews.blogspot.com...
Drugs, drugs, drugs. Atta the cokehead. Hopsicker even maintained
that 9/11 was a drug war between Osama and the Bushes. Eh?!?
Then a year later in Sept. 2006 our concerns were validated:
"It was my bad for lying. I really didn't think about it until after I did it."
By HEATHER ALLEN
For five years, Amanda Keller has been portrayed by conspiracy theorists as Mohamed Atta's lover.
But the former Venice stripper now says her boyfriend was another flight
student not connected to 9/11. And, for the first time, federal investigators
say she's right.
More www.breakfornews.com...
Rich23 defends Hopsicker by saying: "it looks more like she was
pressured to retract than anything else."
Really? So much pressure that it was FIVE YEARS after making her
claims and having them widely publicized that she felt "pressure"??
That doesn't add up. What does add up is that Keller was a decoy who
was flaunted for five years and then slickly pulled out of the frame.
That's just one example of the issues we raise.
Issues deserving more than knee-jerk dismissal.
Unless you LIKE being made fools of by the CIA Fakes....
[edit on 21-3-2009 by BreakForNews]
Brilliant! Fintan Dunne has graced ATS with his presence... but not, it seems, with any substantial argument.
No, it isn't.
These are three "what if?" questions with no actual evidence to back it up when it comes to the websites concerned.
One might ask, with rather more justification, what if Fintan Dunne were a CIA disinfo agent trying to divide the movement, head people away from serious sites, and generally waste people's time?
He's doing a pretty good job of it so far.
Let's. Er... just quoting your site, which I've already quoted fulsomely, isn't really advancing the argument or dealing with the points I raised.
And that's supposed to mean they're a CIA Fake? The guy is an independent journalist who clearly does rather more legwork than you're prepared to. I gave, for those who wanted to check it out, a link to an ATS page where several of the more dedicated and clever investigators that have graced the pages of this website got together to validate the story of the "5 tone coke bust plane" and indeed flesh it out.
"Whou'da [sic] thunk? Who knew?"
Great argument, Sherlock.
No. You accused or smeared Amanda Keller, without any evidence to back things up other than her alleged "bad acting". You did your best to prejudice the minds of anyone who might pursue the link before they'd even clicked on it.
Crude smear tactics. Where's the beef? All that I could find was:
Perhaps you'd like to show me where Hopsicker actually does say that. It's not something I could find, and it's not the impression I came away with when I first read the article.
In a story from the original newspaper that, whoops, originally reported that Keller was Atta's girlfriend, and, whoops again, in a story for which the source is an un-named FBI agent.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MISQUOTING ME AND EXPOSING YOURSELF AS BEING AT THE VERY LEAST CARELESS AND MOST LIKELY DISINGENUOUS.
Here's what I actually said, as anyone who cares to scroll up will be able to see for themselves:
I've added the emphasis, but the words are the same as before.
Ok. Let's look at this in some detail.
I note, with some satisfaction (it's always nice when one's assessment of someone turns out to be validated by events) that you've avoided dealing with certain germane issues in Hopsicker's account.
For example, he has several witnesses who verified that Atta and Keller were living together.
The relevant page of MadCowMorningNews
So, Hopsicker has several witnesses who placed them living together. He kicks a hole in the FBI story that phone records show no calls between the two by demonstrating that the phone records as released show a massive gap during that time (I urge readers of this to visit the link and go through the details themselves, I shan't quote it all here for reasons of space). He also has several instances of witness intimidation:
We have testimony from the guy who owned the apartment where Keller and Atta lived:
More witness intimidation:
You have this to say:
Flaunted for five years? Flaunted?
Flaunted by whom, exactly?
No, what actually adds up here is that the authorities did their best to suppress the goings-on in Venice, Florida; the FBI tried to intimidate several witnesses, including Amanda Keller; Hopsicker was successful in getting them to talk; and then, eventually, when it looked like the story might be getting some attention, the loose end was tied up by getting Keller to retract her detailed testimony.
And you never seem to explain why this issue is a red herring. The facts lead us where they will. The fact that you seem to want to head us away from useful sources of proper independent journalism tells us something, I think.
I leave it to those few people who've made it this far through a long post whether it's been a knee-jerk dismissal or a detailed rebuttal. You're the one who seems to specialise in knee-jerk dismissal... and all your targets are ones that the CIA would find distressing.
Remember, Hopsicker's only ONE site, which I picked on because you provided some... well, evidence is too strong a word, even argument doesn't quite cut it, but... well, you had a go. There are many other sites on that list that I've found interesting and useful. The Riverbend blog, for example. A compelling account by an Iraqi girl, highly educated, with good English, detailing the appalling effect that the US invasion has had on that country. And your reason for smearing her is, exactly?
And co-operativeresearch? They are CIA fakes because?
What they do is provide verifiably sourced information that builds into a valuable database for any serious 9/11 researcher. We can't have that, can we?
I don't know all the sites on your list, but the ones I do know have provided material I personally find useful. I leave it to others to make their minds up about this.
Yours, however, is a distraction and I have little hesitation in identifying it as disinfo. You do exactly the things you accuse others of.
[edit on 21-3-2009 by rich23]
Originally posted by BreakForNews
But the case I make is substantial and argued in detail.
No, it isn't.
What if the black-ops/intel agencies covering up 9/11 were
determined...
What if they wisely decided that such a monstrous crime
required a proportionately large cover-up?
What if they built themselves an anti-government network
years in advance?...
These are three "what if?" questions with no actual evidence to back it up when it comes to the websites concerned.
One might ask, with rather more justification, what if Fintan Dunne were a CIA disinfo agent trying to divide the movement, head people away from serious sites, and generally waste people's time?
He's doing a pretty good job of it so far.
Let me deal with one issue Rich23 raised: Dan Hopsicker & Amanda Keller.
Let's. Er... just quoting your site, which I've already quoted fulsomely, isn't really advancing the argument or dealing with the points I raised.
Rich23 defends Hopsicker, saying his is : "a site that has been particularly
strong on exposing CIA drug deals." So the CIA is involved in drugs?
Gosh, whou'da thunk? Who knew!
And that's supposed to mean they're a CIA Fake? The guy is an independent journalist who clearly does rather more legwork than you're prepared to. I gave, for those who wanted to check it out, a link to an ATS page where several of the more dedicated and clever investigators that have graced the pages of this website got together to validate the story of the "5 tone coke bust plane" and indeed flesh it out.
"Whou'da [sic] thunk? Who knew?"
Great argument, Sherlock.
We exposed Amanda Keller...
No. You accused or smeared Amanda Keller, without any evidence to back things up other than her alleged "bad acting". You did your best to prejudice the minds of anyone who might pursue the link before they'd even clicked on it.
In August, 2005 we gave Amanda an award:
Crude smear tactics. Where's the beef? All that I could find was:
[Drugs, drugs, drugs. Atta the cokehead. Hopsicker even maintained that 9/11 was a drug war between Osama and the Bushes. Eh?!?
Perhaps you'd like to show me where Hopsicker actually does say that. It's not something I could find, and it's not the impression I came away with when I first read the article.
Then a year later in Sept. 2006 our concerns were validated:
In a story from the original newspaper that, whoops, originally reported that Keller was Atta's girlfriend, and, whoops again, in a story for which the source is an un-named FBI agent.
Rich23 defends Hopsicker by saying: "it looks more like she was
pressured to retract than anything else."
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MISQUOTING ME AND EXPOSING YOURSELF AS BEING AT THE VERY LEAST CARELESS AND MOST LIKELY DISINGENUOUS.
Here's what I actually said, as anyone who cares to scroll up will be able to see for themselves:
Originally posted by rich23
He makes a great deal of Amanda Keller retracting her story. If he were genuinely impartial, he'd at least be considering the possibility that she was intimidated into doing that.
I've added the emphasis, but the words are the same as before.
Really? So much pressure that it was FIVE YEARS after making her
claims and having them widely publicized that she felt "pressure"??
Ok. Let's look at this in some detail.
I note, with some satisfaction (it's always nice when one's assessment of someone turns out to be validated by events) that you've avoided dealing with certain germane issues in Hopsicker's account.
For example, he has several witnesses who verified that Atta and Keller were living together.
The obvious question would be: What possible motive would anyone have for lying about being a former girlfriend of the most reviled man on the planet?
The question must not have occurred to either Tribune reporter Heather Allen or editor David Hackett. The article offers no explanation for why Keller supposedly lied, then left town to avoid publicity.
Nor does it offer the reason numerous other eyewitnesses to the liaison also presumably lied, a list that includes two apartment managers, the woman who owned the apartment building, several next-door neighbors, and even the postman. All remain unmentioned.
The relevant page of MadCowMorningNews
So, Hopsicker has several witnesses who placed them living together. He kicks a hole in the FBI story that phone records show no calls between the two by demonstrating that the phone records as released show a massive gap during that time (I urge readers of this to visit the link and go through the details themselves, I shan't quote it all here for reasons of space). He also has several instances of witness intimidation:
Kimel’s next story about Atta and Amanda included a brief phone interview with her. She spoke to him from her mother’s house in the northern Florida town of Lady Lake. “She said authorities told her not to say anything at all about Atta,” reported Kimel.
The story then quoted Amanda Keller's last eleven words, before she lapsed into a silence which only ended after we found her more than a year later:
“I can’t really discuss anything. I’m afraid I’ll get in trouble.”
We have testimony from the guy who owned the apartment where Keller and Atta lived:
Charlie Grapentine’s recollections of Mohamed Atta were not received warmly by the FBI. And on the subject of talking to reporters, their response was positively frosty.
“They called me a liar, and told me to keep my mouth shut,” the ex-marine told us grimly. "Nobody likes to hear that; that they didn’t see something they know they saw."
More witness intimidation:
Stephanie Frederickson is nobody’s idea of a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ She cares during the day for the baby of a friend needing help.
Stephanie confirmed the Grapentine’s account, then offered new details...
What Stephanie really wanted to talk about, however--what both she and Charlie Grapentine were fairly bursting to talk about--was how she had been harassed and intimidated by agents of the FBI.
"At first, right after the attack, they told me I must have been mistaken in my identification," she stated. "Or they would insinuate that I was lying. Finally they stopped trying to get me to change my story, and just stopped by once a week to make sure I hadn’t been talking to anyone.”
For at least six months after the 9/11 attack, Frederickson says, she received weekly visits from agents from the FBI’s Sarasota office. "The question they asked was always the same," she says.
"You aren’t saying anything to anybody, are you?"
You have this to say:
That doesn't add up. What does add up is that Keller was a decoy who was flaunted for five years and then slickly pulled out of the frame.
Flaunted for five years? Flaunted?
Flaunted by whom, exactly?
No, what actually adds up here is that the authorities did their best to suppress the goings-on in Venice, Florida; the FBI tried to intimidate several witnesses, including Amanda Keller; Hopsicker was successful in getting them to talk; and then, eventually, when it looked like the story might be getting some attention, the loose end was tied up by getting Keller to retract her detailed testimony.
And you never seem to explain why this issue is a red herring. The facts lead us where they will. The fact that you seem to want to head us away from useful sources of proper independent journalism tells us something, I think.
That's just one example of the issues we raise.
Issues deserving more than knee-jerk dismissal.
I leave it to those few people who've made it this far through a long post whether it's been a knee-jerk dismissal or a detailed rebuttal. You're the one who seems to specialise in knee-jerk dismissal... and all your targets are ones that the CIA would find distressing.
Remember, Hopsicker's only ONE site, which I picked on because you provided some... well, evidence is too strong a word, even argument doesn't quite cut it, but... well, you had a go. There are many other sites on that list that I've found interesting and useful. The Riverbend blog, for example. A compelling account by an Iraqi girl, highly educated, with good English, detailing the appalling effect that the US invasion has had on that country. And your reason for smearing her is, exactly?
And co-operativeresearch? They are CIA fakes because?
What they do is provide verifiably sourced information that builds into a valuable database for any serious 9/11 researcher. We can't have that, can we?
I don't know all the sites on your list, but the ones I do know have provided material I personally find useful. I leave it to others to make their minds up about this.
Yours, however, is a distraction and I have little hesitation in identifying it as disinfo. You do exactly the things you accuse others of.
[edit on 21-3-2009 by rich23]
I've been trudging through Fintan Dunne's site again, looking for genuine analysis or new information. And, predictably, coming up empty.
Let's have a look at a sample article about Mohammed Atta: Mickey Atta and the big McWhoppers.
Note that for someone who constantly rails against "tabloid 9/11" reportage, Dunne doesn't shrink from writing in a style befitting the National Enquirer.
Now, it's a fairly short article and we can take it almost line by line.
So what is actually being said under this confusing mass of verbiage? I think the central assertion is that last sentence I put in bold type.
Let's just look at that a little more carefully.
I would argue that, yes, there is a back-story we're supposed to believe about Mohammed Atta. He's supposed to have been a devout Islamic terrorist who could fly a plane and pilot it into the WTC north tower. Now, you'd think that stories that suggest that Atta's piloting skills weren't up to much, that he liked to snort coke and party with strippers... you'd think that these stories might deserve closer attention as they do contradict the official image somewhat, especially as he got his coke, it seems, from people plugged into the black ops network.
It sounds to me like the CIA (or whoever planned this op) designed the official account, not the "wild back story" that's been uncovered by independent investigators in the teeth of witness intimidation by the FBI, as reported by Daniel Hopsicker and referenced in my last post.
So, already, we have an elision of the official line and the revelations by Hopsicker et al. In fact, the revelations do not, as claimed, focus on the official story, they contradict it.
Interesting. We should only focus on the "major crime scene at the WTC". Atta's shady activities, and his connections with the CIA, should not be focused upon, and the people who expose these connections are CIA fakes.
This is logic worthy of the Warren Commission.
This is an extremely poor rendition of the "Able Danger story". My personal favourite theory on this, at the moment, is that elucidated by Webster Tarpley in this video.
Be warned: it's two hours long. Naturally, Tarpley is one of those Dunne decries as being a CIA fake. Why, I don't know. Perhaps he will favour us with an explanation, and tell us why Tarpley's analysis is at fault.
At any rate, Tarpley's interpretation is that Able Danger and Able Guardian were the two opposing teams on the crucial exercise on the day of 9/11. Able Danger was not just about datamining, it was about "manipulating" (i.e., running) the terrorist groups.
You may note that Tarpley looks on Bush almost as a patsy. The people running the op were much smarter and better connected, as far as he's concerned. Therefore to say "it's Bush's fault" does an injustice to other people's analysis and grasp of fact.
Anyway, back to Dunne...
You might note that at no point are any links offered, by the way. What we have here is the tying together of a number of different and often interesting stories, all of which are dismissed as spin because, according to Dunne, they blame different parties.
Sibel Edmonds, who asserts that the hijackers got entry papers all too easily, and that this was ignored and covered up when she pointed this out, gets a little backhanded smear. She's apparently blaming the FBI.
Well, no. What's happening here is that small pieces of information are coming together to form a larger picture, and it seems it's one that Dunne either doesn't want people to see or can't see for himself. It's a picture in which the 9/11 plot encompasses many people in a variety of agencies, in which the terrorists are not the Islamic fanatics the MSM would paint them as, and in which a few courageous people have the courage to speak out despite severe consequences... and then get smeared by Dunne for their pains.
It's entirely possible that the stories Dunne refers to have differing points of view. We are not, however, given enough information to see if they're mutually exclusive. Dunne dismisses them all as spin because he says - and we can only take his word for it because references are not given - that they blame different people.
This is insufficient grounds for dismissing the stories as spin: different people have different viewpoints and come at the problem from different sets of data. There is nothing suspicious about that.
Interesting elision. Which of the associations is false? The official line that Atta was a devout Muslim? Or the line that he was a cokehead who partied in strip bars and could barely fly?
That paragraph is straight disinfo. Anyone can click on the link I've given to the Webster Tarpley lecture and see someone who is on Dunne's list as a CIA fake give an extremely trenchant MIHOP analysis. The whole point about the drugs allegations is that they connect Atta to the black ops people who are part of the 9/11 establishment.
I wish you would, Fintan.
Those who've taken the trouble to watch the Tarpley video will know this to be false.
"Official"? "Patsy"? I mean, that sentence, closely analysed, actually doesn't mean very much. But at no point are we told who the real villains of the piece are. Now, if you're investigating a story, that's not a problem. You uncover information and it leads you one way or another. Sometimes up blind alleys. That happens, there's nothing you can do. I've changed my thoughts on this over the time I've been looking at it, and I probably will do again as more information comes to light.
But if you're going to say Atta is a diversion, perhaps you should also say what he's a diversion from. But no, we don't get anything solid.
The net effect is to shoo people away from a large amount of incriminating evidence about Atta that links him to all sorts of potentially embarrassing people. People whom the CIA and FBI don't want to become the focus of attention.
Actually no, markedly different aspects of the same story. Perhaps you'd prefer one news agency reporting from one point of view, Fintan? It would make it all so much simpler.
Let's have a look at a sample article about Mohammed Atta: Mickey Atta and the big McWhoppers.
Note that for someone who constantly rails against "tabloid 9/11" reportage, Dunne doesn't shrink from writing in a style befitting the National Enquirer.
Now, it's a fairly short article and we can take it almost line by line.
Each new "question" raised about Atta is designed to relentlessly focus on the official patsy. But you're supposed to think these are "breakthroughs" by the CIA Fake conspiracy sites.
The 9/11 perpetrators carefully designed this wild back-story for Atta in every detail, but you are not supposed to figure that out.
So what is actually being said under this confusing mass of verbiage? I think the central assertion is that last sentence I put in bold type.
Let's just look at that a little more carefully.
I would argue that, yes, there is a back-story we're supposed to believe about Mohammed Atta. He's supposed to have been a devout Islamic terrorist who could fly a plane and pilot it into the WTC north tower. Now, you'd think that stories that suggest that Atta's piloting skills weren't up to much, that he liked to snort coke and party with strippers... you'd think that these stories might deserve closer attention as they do contradict the official image somewhat, especially as he got his coke, it seems, from people plugged into the black ops network.
It sounds to me like the CIA (or whoever planned this op) designed the official account, not the "wild back story" that's been uncovered by independent investigators in the teeth of witness intimidation by the FBI, as reported by Daniel Hopsicker and referenced in my last post.
So, already, we have an elision of the official line and the revelations by Hopsicker et al. In fact, the revelations do not, as claimed, focus on the official story, they contradict it.
It's all thousands of miles from the major crime scene at the WTC, but then this is hamburger-style conspiracy marketing. Grab an Atta McWhopper.
Interesting. We should only focus on the "major crime scene at the WTC". Atta's shady activities, and his connections with the CIA, should not be focused upon, and the people who expose these connections are CIA fakes.
This is logic worthy of the Warren Commission.
Many of the Fakes are running the Able Danger story about a secret intelligence unit which had identified Atta either in 2000, or in late 1999 -while Clinton was still running things. The spin is that this shows how fraudulent is the Bush administration official line on Atta. As usual, it sounds promising on first sight. It's Bush's fault.
This is an extremely poor rendition of the "Able Danger story". My personal favourite theory on this, at the moment, is that elucidated by Webster Tarpley in this video.
Be warned: it's two hours long. Naturally, Tarpley is one of those Dunne decries as being a CIA fake. Why, I don't know. Perhaps he will favour us with an explanation, and tell us why Tarpley's analysis is at fault.
At any rate, Tarpley's interpretation is that Able Danger and Able Guardian were the two opposing teams on the crucial exercise on the day of 9/11. Able Danger was not just about datamining, it was about "manipulating" (i.e., running) the terrorist groups.
You may note that Tarpley looks on Bush almost as a patsy. The people running the op were much smarter and better connected, as far as he's concerned. Therefore to say "it's Bush's fault" does an injustice to other people's analysis and grasp of fact.
Anyway, back to Dunne...
But, puzzlingly, Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax and other right-wing media are running the same story. But their take is that the Clinton Justice Department leaned on the DIA to squelch the report. So it's Clinton's fault.
More spin alleges that the CIA knew but never told the 9/11 Commission, and that a culture of "obstructionism" still prevails in the agency. So it's the CIA's fault.
Also doing the rounds, is the account of a "suspicious" visit by Atta to a gambling ship owned by Republican money-man, Jack Abramoff. All that is being loosely connected to Al-Qaida drug dealing and money laundering. So it's the Saudi's fault.
And all the while, as Sibel Edmonds implies, it's the FBI's fault and the Israeli's fault.
Amazing, isn't it, that one story can be spun so many different directions.
You might note that at no point are any links offered, by the way. What we have here is the tying together of a number of different and often interesting stories, all of which are dismissed as spin because, according to Dunne, they blame different parties.
Sibel Edmonds, who asserts that the hijackers got entry papers all too easily, and that this was ignored and covered up when she pointed this out, gets a little backhanded smear. She's apparently blaming the FBI.
Well, no. What's happening here is that small pieces of information are coming together to form a larger picture, and it seems it's one that Dunne either doesn't want people to see or can't see for himself. It's a picture in which the 9/11 plot encompasses many people in a variety of agencies, in which the terrorists are not the Islamic fanatics the MSM would paint them as, and in which a few courageous people have the courage to speak out despite severe consequences... and then get smeared by Dunne for their pains.
It's entirely possible that the stories Dunne refers to have differing points of view. We are not, however, given enough information to see if they're mutually exclusive. Dunne dismisses them all as spin because he says - and we can only take his word for it because references are not given - that they blame different people.
This is insufficient grounds for dismissing the stories as spin: different people have different viewpoints and come at the problem from different sets of data. There is nothing suspicious about that.
Everything "discovered" about Mohammed Atta was planned. Atta-Boy's job was to smear a false trail of associations all over the Florida landscape.
Interesting elision. Which of the associations is false? The official line that Atta was a devout Muslim? Or the line that he was a cokehead who partied in strip bars and could barely fly?
But when it comes down to it, it's all LIHOP. Bush/Cheney had the motive and let it happen on purpose. Throw in Al-Qaida, some drugs, a few Republicans and Saudis . Now you have means and opportunity. The LIHOP is complete.
That paragraph is straight disinfo. Anyone can click on the link I've given to the Webster Tarpley lecture and see someone who is on Dunne's list as a CIA fake give an extremely trenchant MIHOP analysis. The whole point about the drugs allegations is that they connect Atta to the black ops people who are part of the 9/11 establishment.
So, let's drop the BS.
I wish you would, Fintan.
The CIA-backed "conspiracy theory" features scapegoats GWB and Cheney, whose LIHOP sins will remain forever unproven, but deeply suspected.
Those who've taken the trouble to watch the Tarpley video will know this to be false.
Their official conspiracy theory diversion patsy is as pervasive as Mickey Mouse: the over-the-top, tabloid Atta.
"Official"? "Patsy"? I mean, that sentence, closely analysed, actually doesn't mean very much. But at no point are we told who the real villains of the piece are. Now, if you're investigating a story, that's not a problem. You uncover information and it leads you one way or another. Sometimes up blind alleys. That happens, there's nothing you can do. I've changed my thoughts on this over the time I've been looking at it, and I probably will do again as more information comes to light.
But if you're going to say Atta is a diversion, perhaps you should also say what he's a diversion from. But no, we don't get anything solid.
The net effect is to shoo people away from a large amount of incriminating evidence about Atta that links him to all sorts of potentially embarrassing people. People whom the CIA and FBI don't want to become the focus of attention.
In other words, the government-sponsored 9/11 conspiracy theory is a masterpiece of loose innuendo designed to appeal to many target markets. From MadCowProd to Newsmax to Time magazine.
Same story, same actors, different spins. Cute.
Actually no, markedly different aspects of the same story. Perhaps you'd prefer one news agency reporting from one point of view, Fintan? It would make it all so much simpler.
The CIA love credulous people like Rich23. They love the blind certainty.
Amanda Keller LIES for five years and then disappears --with the media
telling us she says she now plans to leave Florida and get married. That
might just change her second name, which would mean we are looking for
"Amanda Something" --somewhere in the United States. Talk about a dead-end trail! Beautiful.
Now you see her. POOF! - now you don't! ROTFLMAO
And as "Amanda" always wore those trademark librarian spectacles, we
don't know what she looks like without them. Clever. (Maybe she really
needed those spectacles badly, because most women would remove
them for an on-camera interview. But as the photos show, they must
have been a light prescription -if not entirely fake clear lenses, because
if spectacles have a moderate to strong lens they make your eyes appear
small --but "Amanda" has full-sized eyes behind those lenses.)
Check those eyes:
Note that Hopsicker never gave us the detailed skinny on "Amanda's"
background - we know nothing about her which would help trace her in
order to determine if we were conned --by both her and Hopsicker.
And "Mohammed" apparently killed "Amanda's" baby kittens. I'm serious.
That's what Amanda and Hopsicker say. What a despicable psycho, eh?
I mean a guy who would kill baby kittens wouldn't hesitate to commit
mass murder on 9/11. Ask "Amanda." If you can find her.
Hopsicker used this material to assure us that Mohammed Atta was
definitely a psycho who could well have masterminded the 9/11 attacks.
He actually backs the Government line! (albeit for different reasons)
The Government says 'Fanatical Terrorist who carried out 9/11'
Amanda/Hopsicker say 'Coked out Psycho who carried out 9/11'
And they tell us he had wads and wads of money. We are spun tales
of a coc aine-sodden Atta; strewing money about; partying and meeting
shadowy drug contacts in Key West -- like some kind of a B-movie-style
'Miami Vice' villan. It's a story as incredible as the Government's version
of events.
This scripted fantasy was sold to us on the basis of a single witness
--interviewed only in any depth by Hopsicker alone-- who then takes a
powder when her Red Herring role is fulfilled.
Just how dumb do they think we are???!!??
But Rich23 buys this BS without hesitation. Not for him the careful
skepticism of the seasoned investigator. You and I may know that
we are up against devious intelligence types who contrive these
kind of deceptions as routine business in their intelligence work.
But he doesn't pause for thought for even a moment.
Instead he attacks me for saying "Amanda" was a CIA Operation.
Think about that.
Amanda Keller was NOT scared off. The time to be scared was back in
2001, 2002. But she wasn't scared. She gave multiple on-camera
interviews and kept her BS CIA story up for five years.
Here's what's really going on.
Amanda Keller was a CIA Plant with a CIA journalist acting as the sole
conduit to convey her story to the world. The "Mohammed" who was
playing the part of the kitten-killler was also on the CIA Payroll.
The three of them were a CIA Decoy Operation. A dead-end trail leading
absolutely nowhere. Daniel Hopsicker was the journalist with carefully
constructed street cred to make it all seem credible at the time.
This is just ONE example of the reasoning in my investigative approach.
There were plenty more CIA Ops also deployed to cover the 9/11 crime.
The Perps had YEARS to prepare such ambushes for 9/11 Truthseekers.
A reasonable person would at least pause and admit that indeed there
might be a lot in what I am saying. But Rich23 says I'm totally full of it.
I'm happy to let my research speak for itself.
Here it is. Decide for yourself:
www.breakfornews.com...
[edit on 22-3-2009 by BreakForNews]
Amanda Keller LIES for five years and then disappears --with the media
telling us she says she now plans to leave Florida and get married. That
might just change her second name, which would mean we are looking for
"Amanda Something" --somewhere in the United States. Talk about a dead-end trail! Beautiful.
Now you see her. POOF! - now you don't! ROTFLMAO
And as "Amanda" always wore those trademark librarian spectacles, we
don't know what she looks like without them. Clever. (Maybe she really
needed those spectacles badly, because most women would remove
them for an on-camera interview. But as the photos show, they must
have been a light prescription -if not entirely fake clear lenses, because
if spectacles have a moderate to strong lens they make your eyes appear
small --but "Amanda" has full-sized eyes behind those lenses.)
Check those eyes:
Note that Hopsicker never gave us the detailed skinny on "Amanda's"
background - we know nothing about her which would help trace her in
order to determine if we were conned --by both her and Hopsicker.
And "Mohammed" apparently killed "Amanda's" baby kittens. I'm serious.
That's what Amanda and Hopsicker say. What a despicable psycho, eh?
I mean a guy who would kill baby kittens wouldn't hesitate to commit
mass murder on 9/11. Ask "Amanda." If you can find her.
Hopsicker used this material to assure us that Mohammed Atta was
definitely a psycho who could well have masterminded the 9/11 attacks.
He actually backs the Government line! (albeit for different reasons)
The Government says 'Fanatical Terrorist who carried out 9/11'
Amanda/Hopsicker say 'Coked out Psycho who carried out 9/11'
And they tell us he had wads and wads of money. We are spun tales
of a coc aine-sodden Atta; strewing money about; partying and meeting
shadowy drug contacts in Key West -- like some kind of a B-movie-style
'Miami Vice' villan. It's a story as incredible as the Government's version
of events.
This scripted fantasy was sold to us on the basis of a single witness
--interviewed only in any depth by Hopsicker alone-- who then takes a
powder when her Red Herring role is fulfilled.
Just how dumb do they think we are???!!??
But Rich23 buys this BS without hesitation. Not for him the careful
skepticism of the seasoned investigator. You and I may know that
we are up against devious intelligence types who contrive these
kind of deceptions as routine business in their intelligence work.
But he doesn't pause for thought for even a moment.
Instead he attacks me for saying "Amanda" was a CIA Operation.
Think about that.
Amanda Keller was NOT scared off. The time to be scared was back in
2001, 2002. But she wasn't scared. She gave multiple on-camera
interviews and kept her BS CIA story up for five years.
Here's what's really going on.
Amanda Keller was a CIA Plant with a CIA journalist acting as the sole
conduit to convey her story to the world. The "Mohammed" who was
playing the part of the kitten-killler was also on the CIA Payroll.
The three of them were a CIA Decoy Operation. A dead-end trail leading
absolutely nowhere. Daniel Hopsicker was the journalist with carefully
constructed street cred to make it all seem credible at the time.
This is just ONE example of the reasoning in my investigative approach.
There were plenty more CIA Ops also deployed to cover the 9/11 crime.
The Perps had YEARS to prepare such ambushes for 9/11 Truthseekers.
A reasonable person would at least pause and admit that indeed there
might be a lot in what I am saying. But Rich23 says I'm totally full of it.
I'm happy to let my research speak for itself.
Here it is. Decide for yourself:
www.breakfornews.com...
[edit on 22-3-2009 by BreakForNews]
Well, my pretties, with every new posting, I'm becoming more and more certain that Dunne is exactly what I've said he was in the first place. It's
wonderful to have one's judgement confirmed.
Now, I've raised various points along the way, and we can see that Dunne has dealt with precisely, er... none of them.
Because of the paucity of evidence, he's reduced to disinfo distraction. Let's have a look.
I leave it to the reader to judge whether I've been displaying blind certainlty or cautious skepticism. I'd also remind the reader that Dunne's source for Keller's retraction is an unnamed FBI agent. Credulous, moi?
Source? And your reason for being so sure that she's lying? No, simple assertion is apparently enough. Logic, argument, all are needless. Blind certainty that Keller is lying, though. The, er, FBI told you so, therefore it must be true.
And rather than deal with any of my points - like the precise nature of the official story - we get some attempts to distract from the argument. Where is Keller now? What does she look like?
I've found it a good rule that emoticons and that kind of LMAO acronym appear in inverse proportion to actual content.
Like the whole Clark Kent/Superman thing, perhaps. I can't say I was ROTF, but I am certainly grinning from ear to ear. I can only hope this is a cut-and-paste job from Dunne's website, because if it's actually supposed to be a response to what I've posted so far, it's utterly irrelevant.
Mmm. I can't count the number of articles where the interviewee's details are given in case we want to have a word with them. In the same way I can't count the number of points I've raised that Dunne has actually dealt with.
AHA! Our first piece of actual disinfo.
Mr. Dunne, can you please provide a link to, and a detailed quote from, the page of Hopsicker's website where he says that Atta masterminded the 9/11 attacks?
Prediction: he won't. Atta was never more than a bit player, and this is just another attempt to smear Hopsicker by imputing to him things he never said.
Again, we have this refusal to deal with the salient point I raised. Mr. Dunne wants to blur the nature of the Government line, which was that Atta was an Islamic fundamentalist who would willingly sacrifice himself in jihad.
The story that's emerging is that Atta - not a nice person, by any account - was a bit of a cokehead who'd been recruited to play the terrorist in a training exercise. As Tarpley says in his lecture linked in my previous post, the exercise turned into the real thing, probably to Atta's surprise.
This is hardly the Government line.
Far from being indissolubly wedded to this story, it's simply my current working hypothesis which I'm prepared to change as more data emerges - IF I trust the source of that data.
Fintan Dune says... what, exactly? Atta didn't carry out 9/11?
Is that what you're saying here, Fintan? I think we should be told.
I think the "coked out psycho" line paints a rather different picture from the image the government wants to portray of fundamentalist terrorists. The fact that Dunne wants to blur or erase this distinction tells us something about his agenda.
But I thought you said this was the Government's version of events.
You really must learn to stick to your story, Mr. Dunne. And now, more disinfo and a disingenuous attempt to spin Hopsicker's story:
At this point, I have to resort to subtitles for the hard of thinking: as stated in Hopsicker's story, and quoted by myself in my previous response to your last effort at disinfo, several independent witnesses confirmed Keller and Atta living at the same address.
As two of these witnesses were the owners of the property Atta rented, if you wanted to track them down, you probably could. Keller may want to disappear and have a quiet life, and who can blame her? Fintan Dunne, apparently.
Apparently, Mr. Dunne thinks I'm dumb enough that I won't notice that he's trying to distract people from useful information produced by independent websites. Remember, MadCowMorningNews is only one website out of 109 websites he'd rather we didn't look at, including AlJazeera! Click his link, see if there are any sites there that have provided you with useful information in the past.
And then consider: if his case against MadCowProd is this thin, how substantial is his case against the other 108?
[edit on 22-3-2009 by rich23]
Now, I've raised various points along the way, and we can see that Dunne has dealt with precisely, er... none of them.
Because of the paucity of evidence, he's reduced to disinfo distraction. Let's have a look.
Originally posted by BreakForNews
The CIA love credulous people like Rich23. They love the blind certainty.
I leave it to the reader to judge whether I've been displaying blind certainlty or cautious skepticism. I'd also remind the reader that Dunne's source for Keller's retraction is an unnamed FBI agent. Credulous, moi?
Amanda Keller LIES for five years and then disappears --with the media telling us she says she now plans to leave Florida and get married.
Source? And your reason for being so sure that she's lying? No, simple assertion is apparently enough. Logic, argument, all are needless. Blind certainty that Keller is lying, though. The, er, FBI told you so, therefore it must be true.
And rather than deal with any of my points - like the precise nature of the official story - we get some attempts to distract from the argument. Where is Keller now? What does she look like?
Now you see her. POOF! - now you don't! ROTFLMAO
I've found it a good rule that emoticons and that kind of LMAO acronym appear in inverse proportion to actual content.
And as "Amanda" always wore those trademark librarian spectacles, we don't know what she looks like without them. Clever.
Like the whole Clark Kent/Superman thing, perhaps. I can't say I was ROTF, but I am certainly grinning from ear to ear. I can only hope this is a cut-and-paste job from Dunne's website, because if it's actually supposed to be a response to what I've posted so far, it's utterly irrelevant.
Note that Hopsicker never gave us the detailed skinny on "Amanda's" background - we know nothing about her which would help trace her in order to determine if we were conned --by both her and Hopsicker.
Mmm. I can't count the number of articles where the interviewee's details are given in case we want to have a word with them. In the same way I can't count the number of points I've raised that Dunne has actually dealt with.
And "Mohammed" apparently killed "Amanda's" baby kittens...
Hopsicker used this material to assure us that Mohammed Atta was
definitely a psycho who could well have masterminded the 9/11 attacks.
AHA! Our first piece of actual disinfo.
Mr. Dunne, can you please provide a link to, and a detailed quote from, the page of Hopsicker's website where he says that Atta masterminded the 9/11 attacks?
Prediction: he won't. Atta was never more than a bit player, and this is just another attempt to smear Hopsicker by imputing to him things he never said.
He actually backs the Government line! (albeit for different reasons)
Again, we have this refusal to deal with the salient point I raised. Mr. Dunne wants to blur the nature of the Government line, which was that Atta was an Islamic fundamentalist who would willingly sacrifice himself in jihad.
The story that's emerging is that Atta - not a nice person, by any account - was a bit of a cokehead who'd been recruited to play the terrorist in a training exercise. As Tarpley says in his lecture linked in my previous post, the exercise turned into the real thing, probably to Atta's surprise.
This is hardly the Government line.
Far from being indissolubly wedded to this story, it's simply my current working hypothesis which I'm prepared to change as more data emerges - IF I trust the source of that data.
The Government says 'Fanatical Terrorist who carried out 9/11'
Amanda/Hopsicker say 'Coked out Psycho who carried out 9/11'
Fintan Dune says... what, exactly? Atta didn't carry out 9/11?
Is that what you're saying here, Fintan? I think we should be told.
I think the "coked out psycho" line paints a rather different picture from the image the government wants to portray of fundamentalist terrorists. The fact that Dunne wants to blur or erase this distinction tells us something about his agenda.
And they tell us he had wads and wads of money...It's a story as incredible as the Government's version of events.
But I thought you said this was the Government's version of events.
You really must learn to stick to your story, Mr. Dunne. And now, more disinfo and a disingenuous attempt to spin Hopsicker's story:
This scripted fantasy was sold to us on the basis of a single witness
--interviewed only in any depth by Hopsicker alone-- who then takes a
powder when her Red Herring role is fulfilled.
At this point, I have to resort to subtitles for the hard of thinking: as stated in Hopsicker's story, and quoted by myself in my previous response to your last effort at disinfo, several independent witnesses confirmed Keller and Atta living at the same address.
As two of these witnesses were the owners of the property Atta rented, if you wanted to track them down, you probably could. Keller may want to disappear and have a quiet life, and who can blame her? Fintan Dunne, apparently.
Just how dumb do they think we are???!!??
Apparently, Mr. Dunne thinks I'm dumb enough that I won't notice that he's trying to distract people from useful information produced by independent websites. Remember, MadCowMorningNews is only one website out of 109 websites he'd rather we didn't look at, including AlJazeera! Click his link, see if there are any sites there that have provided you with useful information in the past.
And then consider: if his case against MadCowProd is this thin, how substantial is his case against the other 108?
[edit on 22-3-2009 by rich23]
...continued...
People may choose to agree or disagree with this statement. You might, for example, note that I have dealt with Dunne's posts line by line, whereas he has consistently misrepresented the content of websites, accepted at face value a story for which the only source is an un-named FBI agent, and ignored details which I find both interesting and salient.
Actually, I do too, which is why I'm paying particular attention to Dunne's output. If I'm succeeding in what I'm trying to do, then the reader of this thread will be getting an object lesson in decoding and dealing with disinfo tactics, although, I have to say, I've seen far more difficult and slippery disinfo agents elsewhere on ATS. You may have your suspicions.
I love that "you and I may know" though. Nice, matey touch, that. Again, not ROFL but AQSPAML (a quirky smile plays about my lips).
Indeed. The readors of this thread may judge for themselves whether this statement is true. I would say there's plenty of evidence to the contrary... but then I would, wouldn't I?
Think hard about that... harrrrddd!!!
Again, I'm attacking him for saying that 109 sites, several of which I have come to know and more or less trust, are CIA fakes. Again, I'm attacking him for accepting the word of an un-named FBI agent as proof that Amanda Keller lied. I'm attacking him for playing fast and loose with the evidence we've been presented with.
All of this is what suggests to me, very strongly, that he's the CIA fake.
No. She did a couple of interviews in quick succession and then nothing was heard until the FBI agents got her to retract her statement even the people on Dunne's site found unconvincing. But because of the spin he'd applied, they thought it was unconvincing because she'd always been lying, not because she'd been pressured into it.
As for, "the time to be scared was back in 2001, 2002" - anyone who reads up on things like the Kennedy assassination knows that inconvenient witnesses can suffer dreadful accidents years after the event.
But this next part is priceless... tell us what's really going on, Fintan!
Again, any actual evidence to back this up? No, I thought not.
Disinfo - have a look at Hopsicker's website for yourselves. The trail leads off into all sorts of directions, including Atta's CIA connections. Now you may judge for yourselves whether exposing that one of the best-known hijackers had CIA connections and was able to use them to get drugs is something the CIA would want widely known.
Reasoning. I think that's a rather misleading word, there, Fintan.
No, a reasonable person would come to their own conclusions. I do think, after mature reflection, that you are indeed totally full of it, and I have given plenty of reasons why - reasons you conspicuously fail to address.
Apparently not, because you're on here defending it. I'm happy to keep pointing out that your research is confined to attacking many of the most useful and interesting people in the controversy surrounding 9/11, that your "research" seems to consist of taking reports by un-named FBI officials at face value, and that you're promoting precisely the values that the CIA would wish to see associated with the truth movement: divisiveness, sloppy thinking, and paranoia.
Do drop by again. This is fun!
But Rich23 buys this BS without hesitation. Not for him the careful
skepticism of the seasoned investigator.
People may choose to agree or disagree with this statement. You might, for example, note that I have dealt with Dunne's posts line by line, whereas he has consistently misrepresented the content of websites, accepted at face value a story for which the only source is an un-named FBI agent, and ignored details which I find both interesting and salient.
You and I may know that we are up against devious intelligence types who contrive these kind of deceptions as routine business in their intelligence work.
Actually, I do too, which is why I'm paying particular attention to Dunne's output. If I'm succeeding in what I'm trying to do, then the reader of this thread will be getting an object lesson in decoding and dealing with disinfo tactics, although, I have to say, I've seen far more difficult and slippery disinfo agents elsewhere on ATS. You may have your suspicions.
I love that "you and I may know" though. Nice, matey touch, that. Again, not ROFL but AQSPAML (a quirky smile plays about my lips).
But he doesn't pause for thought for even a moment.
Indeed. The readors of this thread may judge for themselves whether this statement is true. I would say there's plenty of evidence to the contrary... but then I would, wouldn't I?
Instead he attacks me for saying "Amanda" was a CIA Operation.
Think about that.
Think hard about that... harrrrddd!!!
Again, I'm attacking him for saying that 109 sites, several of which I have come to know and more or less trust, are CIA fakes. Again, I'm attacking him for accepting the word of an un-named FBI agent as proof that Amanda Keller lied. I'm attacking him for playing fast and loose with the evidence we've been presented with.
All of this is what suggests to me, very strongly, that he's the CIA fake.
Amanda Keller was NOT scared off. The time to be scared was back in 2001, 2002. But she wasn't scared. She gave multiple on-camera
interviews and kept her BS CIA story up for five years.
No. She did a couple of interviews in quick succession and then nothing was heard until the FBI agents got her to retract her statement even the people on Dunne's site found unconvincing. But because of the spin he'd applied, they thought it was unconvincing because she'd always been lying, not because she'd been pressured into it.
As for, "the time to be scared was back in 2001, 2002" - anyone who reads up on things like the Kennedy assassination knows that inconvenient witnesses can suffer dreadful accidents years after the event.
But this next part is priceless... tell us what's really going on, Fintan!
Here's what's really going on.
Amanda Keller was a CIA Plant with a CIA journalist acting as the sole
conduit to convey her story to the world. The "Mohammed" who was
playing the part of the kitten-killler was also on the CIA Payroll.
Again, any actual evidence to back this up? No, I thought not.
The three of them were a CIA Decoy Operation. A dead-end trail leading absolutely nowhere.
Disinfo - have a look at Hopsicker's website for yourselves. The trail leads off into all sorts of directions, including Atta's CIA connections. Now you may judge for yourselves whether exposing that one of the best-known hijackers had CIA connections and was able to use them to get drugs is something the CIA would want widely known.
This is just ONE example of the reasoning in my investigative approach.
Reasoning. I think that's a rather misleading word, there, Fintan.
A reasonable person would at least pause and admit that indeed there might be a lot in what I am saying. But Rich23 says I'm totally full of it.
No, a reasonable person would come to their own conclusions. I do think, after mature reflection, that you are indeed totally full of it, and I have given plenty of reasons why - reasons you conspicuously fail to address.
I'm happy to let my research speak for itself.
Apparently not, because you're on here defending it. I'm happy to keep pointing out that your research is confined to attacking many of the most useful and interesting people in the controversy surrounding 9/11, that your "research" seems to consist of taking reports by un-named FBI officials at face value, and that you're promoting precisely the values that the CIA would wish to see associated with the truth movement: divisiveness, sloppy thinking, and paranoia.
Do drop by again. This is fun!
I'm looking at some of the other sites flagged by Dunne as "CIA fakes".
Here's one: www.monbiot.com...
George Monbiot is a journalist and researcher whose work I value and respect. He's done valuable work showing the connections between big business and the US and UK governments.
But guess what? He doesn't agree that 9/11 was an inside job.
There's more than one article that, IMO, unfairly attacks the 9/11 truth movement.
Does that mean he's a CIA plant? Not for me. It's a free world: people believe what they want. Monbiot thinks the 0/11 issue is a distraction from what's really going on, as he says in this article. Which, oddly enough, is the same argument used by Dunne in trying to shoo us away from 109 websites individually named.
See, I don't know about you, but I can imagine a world in which people have differing opinions on stuff... and there are several stories that Monbiot has been strong on that have given me useful information and perspectives on what's going on in the world. He's very hot on globalization issues, on what's called the PFI initiative in the UK, and on the revolving door between governments and corporations.
There are so many sites where "Loose Change" has been debunked. Yet Monbiot's is singled out. No doubt his debunking article would be the reason Dunne would advance for listing Monbiot's site.
However, when you look at the list of sites Dunne lists as internet fakes, 911Myths, to take but one example, is missing. Why is that?
And why is Dunne so keen to dismiss Monbiot as a fake when only a tiny proportion of the articles on the site deal with 9/11? When so many other sites have similar articles?
I'd say that IF Dunne really is CIA, then it would make sense for him to single out Monbiot for criticism because he exposes the corporate agenda in ways the CIA doesn't like.
This makes rather more sense than listing it because of two or three dismissive articles lost in a sea of other stuff. Go ahead, check out the site. See how much coverage Monbiot gives to 9/11 issues. On this search of the site for the word "9/11", I found 9 articles, of which:
So: why George Monbiot, Mr. Dunne? Why single him out for two articles? Why deprive your (easily influenced) readership of an otherwise provocative and reliable source of information?
And why NOT list 9/11 Myths?
[edit on 22-3-2009 by rich23]
Here's one: www.monbiot.com...
George Monbiot is a journalist and researcher whose work I value and respect. He's done valuable work showing the connections between big business and the US and UK governments.
But guess what? He doesn't agree that 9/11 was an inside job.
There's more than one article that, IMO, unfairly attacks the 9/11 truth movement.
Does that mean he's a CIA plant? Not for me. It's a free world: people believe what they want. Monbiot thinks the 0/11 issue is a distraction from what's really going on, as he says in this article. Which, oddly enough, is the same argument used by Dunne in trying to shoo us away from 109 websites individually named.
See, I don't know about you, but I can imagine a world in which people have differing opinions on stuff... and there are several stories that Monbiot has been strong on that have given me useful information and perspectives on what's going on in the world. He's very hot on globalization issues, on what's called the PFI initiative in the UK, and on the revolving door between governments and corporations.
There are so many sites where "Loose Change" has been debunked. Yet Monbiot's is singled out. No doubt his debunking article would be the reason Dunne would advance for listing Monbiot's site.
However, when you look at the list of sites Dunne lists as internet fakes, 911Myths, to take but one example, is missing. Why is that?
And why is Dunne so keen to dismiss Monbiot as a fake when only a tiny proportion of the articles on the site deal with 9/11? When so many other sites have similar articles?
I'd say that IF Dunne really is CIA, then it would make sense for him to single out Monbiot for criticism because he exposes the corporate agenda in ways the CIA doesn't like.
This makes rather more sense than listing it because of two or three dismissive articles lost in a sea of other stuff. Go ahead, check out the site. See how much coverage Monbiot gives to 9/11 issues. On this search of the site for the word "9/11", I found 9 articles, of which:
- one was a rather sad satire on the truth movement
- one was a rather poor review of Loose Change (although I'm not a fan of that film)
- the other seven articles mention it merely in passing - "after 9/11..." that sort of thing.
So: why George Monbiot, Mr. Dunne? Why single him out for two articles? Why deprive your (easily influenced) readership of an otherwise provocative and reliable source of information?
And why NOT list 9/11 Myths?
[edit on 22-3-2009 by rich23]
This is becoming addictive... I am spending way too much time on this nonsense. But it's just ludicrous.
I went to the BFN website to look for "top stories" and found a link to a post called 9/11 Campaigners: Beware the BBC-WTC7 Sucker Play
I really can't be bothered to go line by line on this, especially as it's composed almost entirely of hot air. Oul Fintan's method is to remind everyone how devious the CIA Internet Fakes are and then to spin the story in such a way as to confuse and sow doubt. Somehow he manages to cast doubt on the people who brought the story up, and hence on the story itself.
There's yet another reference to all the well-funded CIA fake sites. And yet, one of my personal favourite sites that he mentions - www.informationclearinghouse.info - is, again, looking for donations to carry on.
Anyway, uou walk away from the post with a slightly spinning head and the vague impression that if you pay too much heed to this story - or even repeat it - you've been suckered...
I would argue that if people argue calmly and cogently, the case will be made to those capable of understanding it, which is a good start. It might also manage to make people question the official story here and there, again, a good start.
Why would someone who supposedly support 9/11 truth do their best to undermine a story that demonstrates the BBC were being led by the nose, that they covered up about it, and that indicates that WTC7 was subjected to controlled demolition?
If you read further down, however, you'll find a post by Stallion4, which is everything Dunne's post isn't. It's concise, clearly thought out, and with plenty of links to back up his assertions. Go Stallion4! As he says,
But immediately after that comes a post by someone calling themselves "obeylittle". Interestingly, it displays a similar prose style to Dunne's and clearly has the same agenda: distract and confuse. I could be wrong, but I suspect this might be a none-too-subtle effort at sockpuppetry.
Yup, that last post - you know, the one everyone could understand, that had all the links and stuff... it's not for everyone. Move along, nothing to see here. Notice also the fact that this poster uses the word "suckered" from the headline. I can't say for sure, but it really looks to me like this is Fintan under another name.
[edit on 22-3-2009 by rich23]
I went to the BFN website to look for "top stories" and found a link to a post called 9/11 Campaigners: Beware the BBC-WTC7 Sucker Play
I really can't be bothered to go line by line on this, especially as it's composed almost entirely of hot air. Oul Fintan's method is to remind everyone how devious the CIA Internet Fakes are and then to spin the story in such a way as to confuse and sow doubt. Somehow he manages to cast doubt on the people who brought the story up, and hence on the story itself.
There's yet another reference to all the well-funded CIA fake sites. And yet, one of my personal favourite sites that he mentions - www.informationclearinghouse.info - is, again, looking for donations to carry on.
Anyway, uou walk away from the post with a slightly spinning head and the vague impression that if you pay too much heed to this story - or even repeat it - you've been suckered...
So, on the face of it, as far as the undecided are concerned, making a
big deal about the BBC error can be portrayed as the raving of fanatics.
I would argue that if people argue calmly and cogently, the case will be made to those capable of understanding it, which is a good start. It might also manage to make people question the official story here and there, again, a good start.
Why would someone who supposedly support 9/11 truth do their best to undermine a story that demonstrates the BBC were being led by the nose, that they covered up about it, and that indicates that WTC7 was subjected to controlled demolition?
If you read further down, however, you'll find a post by Stallion4, which is everything Dunne's post isn't. It's concise, clearly thought out, and with plenty of links to back up his assertions. Go Stallion4! As he says,
THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO THIS STORY COMING OUT. Millions of people are now hearing about Building 7 for the first time thanks to it, and to 9/11 researchers who are working hard to expose the 9/11 criminals.
But immediately after that comes a post by someone calling themselves "obeylittle". Interestingly, it displays a similar prose style to Dunne's and clearly has the same agenda: distract and confuse. I could be wrong, but I suspect this might be a none-too-subtle effort at sockpuppetry.
This isn't for everyone here so ignore this and move on if you haven't been suckered today.
Yup, that last post - you know, the one everyone could understand, that had all the links and stuff... it's not for everyone. Move along, nothing to see here. Notice also the fact that this poster uses the word "suckered" from the headline. I can't say for sure, but it really looks to me like this is Fintan under another name.
[edit on 22-3-2009 by rich23]
Rich23 said:
"Do drop by again. This is fun!"
No, it's not "fun".
It's mass murder of thousands of US Citizens, which then
enabled the slaughter of a million or more Iraqi civillians.
9/11 Truth is not for your personal entertainment Rich23.
I've seen this type of posting cause great damage to the
movement over the years. People who actually enjoy
warring against other Truthseekers have no place in the search
for Truth. For them, it's all about egotistical battles against others.
That's how they get their kicks.
Enough already.
"Do drop by again. This is fun!"
No, it's not "fun".
It's mass murder of thousands of US Citizens, which then
enabled the slaughter of a million or more Iraqi civillians.
9/11 Truth is not for your personal entertainment Rich23.
I've seen this type of posting cause great damage to the
movement over the years. People who actually enjoy
warring against other Truthseekers have no place in the search
for Truth. For them, it's all about egotistical battles against others.
That's how they get their kicks.
Enough already.
Originally posted by BreakForNews
Rich23 said:
"Do drop by again. This is fun!"
No, it's not "fun".
Yes, it is. You're losing the debate and you don't like it. Every time you post you're exposing yourself as the disinfo merchant you so truly are. So far, you've answered precisely none of the points I've made. Now you come back with humbug and pomposity.
It's fun having my own disinfo agent to play with.
It's mass murder of thousands of US Citizens, which then
enabled the slaughter of a million or more Iraqi civillians.
No, this is a debate forum. Your chances of affecting what's already happened are precisely zero. Your attempt to conflate the two issues is humbug. Even if I thought you were sincere, which I truly don't, you'd still be wrong. But as I've posted here again and again, your site is a distraction. Perhaps I'll join it and start exposing you to your readers. From what's happened so far, it shouldn't be too difficult.
9/11 Truth is not for your personal entertainment Rich23.
Please! I'd sooner be lectured on morality by Dick Cheney on a hunting trip.
You continually expose yourself as a hypocrite, but this paragraph takes some beating:
I've seen this type of posting cause great damage to the
movement over the years. People who actually enjoy
warring against other Truthseekers have no place in the search
for Truth.
If you were genuinely concerned about warring against other truthseekers, why do try and discredit 109 internet sites?
For them, it's all about egotistical battles against others.
That's how they get their kicks.
I cannot deny enjoying pwning you every time you post some of your windiness. But it's not all about that. I posted this thread not even dreaming that you'd actually turn up and attempt to debate. It was merely intended as a warning that this is one site that should be avoided. Not 109, just one. And one site with a very clear agenda.
Enough already.
Pity. Every time you posted you showed yourself up as a disinfo agent. Every point not answered, every misrepresentation, every misquote demonstrated you were a fake. Never mind, I shall continue to analyse your site and expose your tactics on this thread.
Yes, it's fun: but it's also a public service - an object lesson in disinfo and how to deal with it.
[edit on 22-3-2009 by rich23]
As I stated before with coverup's by this and other governments im going to take a moment to remind people here at ats of information I posted in
2002 with a list published by the EFF the electronic frontier foundation. That can be found here.
In the Name of National Security
If there was no need for disinfo from this or other governments why then is this one of the only lists ever published like this. Did you know the EFF as far as I know never finished the list for 2003 and up do you know why? As I recall the NSA sent them a letter to Cease and Assist in the continuing of reporting on government censorship.
In otherwords the gov was getting caught too much covering up or shutting down websites or jailing or arresting reporters or websites that had real or information that everything from political parties and groups tied to disinfo didnt want out.
Keep in mind this is a small but not fully detailed partial list of websites reporters and people that were shut down by U.S. Gov in 2002. Its 2009 how many people and websites are not on this list.
I dont need to say any more then this for now.
Falcon
In the Name of National Security
If there was no need for disinfo from this or other governments why then is this one of the only lists ever published like this. Did you know the EFF as far as I know never finished the list for 2003 and up do you know why? As I recall the NSA sent them a letter to Cease and Assist in the continuing of reporting on government censorship.
In otherwords the gov was getting caught too much covering up or shutting down websites or jailing or arresting reporters or websites that had real or information that everything from political parties and groups tied to disinfo didnt want out.
Keep in mind this is a small but not fully detailed partial list of websites reporters and people that were shut down by U.S. Gov in 2002. Its 2009 how many people and websites are not on this list.
I dont need to say any more then this for now.
Falcon
new topics
-
Thanksgiving 2024
Member Art: 2 hours ago -
The art of being offended
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago -
FLORIDA Sues Biden-Harris FEMA for Denying Disaster Assistance to Homeowners with TRUMP Signs.
US Political Madness: 4 hours ago -
Turns out, they planned to go after P-nut.
US Political Madness: 8 hours ago
top topics
-
Comcast dumping MSNBC
Mainstream News: 17 hours ago, 22 flags -
Turns out, they planned to go after P-nut.
US Political Madness: 8 hours ago, 19 flags -
The art of being offended
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 hours ago, 14 flags -
FLORIDA Sues Biden-Harris FEMA for Denying Disaster Assistance to Homeowners with TRUMP Signs.
US Political Madness: 4 hours ago, 10 flags -
Sick sick sick ---graphic story
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 14 hours ago, 7 flags -
Thanksgiving 2024
Member Art: 2 hours ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Should we look for the truth, or just let it go?
US Political Madness • 118 • : matafuchs -
President-Elect DONALD TRUMP's 2nd-Term Administration Takes Shape.
Political Ideology • 182 • : matafuchs -
Breaking: FBI Agents Raid Polymarket CEO After Betting Site Predicts Trump Win
General Conspiracies • 23 • : Tolkien -
FLORIDA Sues Biden-Harris FEMA for Denying Disaster Assistance to Homeowners with TRUMP Signs.
US Political Madness • 25 • : network dude -
Judge’s Dismissal of Classified Document Case Against Trump Explained
Other Current Events • 24 • : WeMustCare -
The art of being offended
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 19 • : argentus -
Encouraging News Media to be MAGA-PAF Should Be a Top Priority for Trump Admin 2025-2029.
Education and Media • 67 • : Kaiju666 -
Comcast dumping MSNBC
Mainstream News • 24 • : WeMustCare -
Rand Paul EXPOSES Dr. Fauci on Live TV in FIERY Moment
Diseases and Pandemics • 104 • : WeMustCare -
The Trump effect 6 days after 2024 election
2024 Elections • 111 • : Dandandat3