Rogue Secret US Govt 911 Unit-Help To Keep The Governments Lies Alive

I just viewed this on liveleak.com.
Apologies if this has already been posted but my search of the title showed it hasn't.
A rogue outfit operating out of the NSA ... a secret unit within a secret agency ... charged with maintaining the Governments OS on the 9/11 attack.
I shouldn't be surprised, but isn't this a really blatant endeavor by the PTB to quell the truth movement?
I was taught to never fear the truth ... and call attention those who do.

Here's the link:
Rogue Secret US Govt 911 Unit-Help To Keep The Governments Lies Alive

God help us all if they are allowed to continue with this outrage.

This feels like the year 9/11 truth breaks wide open. RT has been hitting it hard week after week, day after day.

Star and Flag.

reply to post by LatentElement


Sorry...I watched the video twice.

The reporter being interviewed never once mentioned 9/11...that was only done by the host, and the graphic description.

Reproter Wayne Madsen mentions a 'sting' occurring that snared a WMD whistleblower --- by this alleged NSA 'Q-group', and he also asserts that this clandestine group has another operation called "First Fruit" to monitor journalists' and others' reporting on the NSA specifically, not 9/11 in general.

This does seem to be a bit of yellow journalism, on its face (not even sure if this source, 'RT', (Russia Today)...that outta ring some alarm bells... (!!) is to be considered reliable).

Anyone know anymore about them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hah! Answered my own question, I did:

larussophobe.wordpress.com...

[edit on 16 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by beebs


Dude.

You've just posted the same video that the Op posted, except from YouTube instead of LiveLeak.

I think before jumping on any bandwagon, the mechanical integrity of that wagon should be inspected, for safety's sake.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Dude... I know I posted the same video. That was my purpose. What bandwagon? Sounds like you are scared of RT...

Yes, obviously Russia Today has ties to the government of Russia... Just like all of our media has ties to OUR government...

So what? Don't you think maybe if 9/11 was an inside job, governments would know?

So maybe, if they want to pull some punches against America, what better way to pressure them than to have your media blow open 911?

Instead of having your governmental reps claiming stuff about 911 and getting called whackos, have the MEDIA fight the battle...



[edit on 16-3-2010 by beebs]

Obama staffer wants 'cognitive infiltration' of 9/11 conspiracy groups

Linked for relevance. The idea of providing a presence on the webs to frustrate people is not far fetched by any means...

reply to post by beebs


Thanks for posting the video!
I agree. With more and more people addressing the fact that there are unanswered questions, and the PTB going so overboard to hide the truth, the whole thing is coming to the point where denial and disinfo won't work anymore.
Thing is, that'll be a scary time. I'm pretty sure those who are responsible won't go quietly. And if they have control of NSA or any other body of government, like the Army, the Guard, etc - it may precipitate a shooting war within our borders.

Can anyone please explain to me why the current US administration would take steps to cover up crimes by a previous Republican administration ?

Is this the way politics usually works ?

reply to post by MemoryShock


Seems just the opposite, as I read deeper into the article:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.

.......

Sunstein's article.... states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Seems to me that is exactly what is happening, as evidenced by the many threads here on ATS 9/11 Forum.

These "conspiracy theories" derive from the mish-mashing together of disparate, sometimes unconnected or downright incorrect bits of information, and blending them together in some new and creative way, to distort the reality of the events.


It is very, very similar to the rash of "Moon Landing Hoax" proponents that keep cropping up, usually in waves. And, this, despite the current photographic evidence of the Apollo landing sites...!

In fact, both the 9/11 and Moon Landing 'conspiracy' advocates base much of their beliefs on photos that are taken out of context, or misinterpreted. Heavily misinterpreted.

reply to post by Alfie1


The truth is, there is no difference between the two parties here.

So yeah, the way it usually works. They only ACT like opposition when not in those back-room deals.

reply to post by MemoryShock


Yep. You're right. I remember reading that article.
And I'm sure they are going to go to any length to keep the John Q Public in the dark as to the truth.
But to actually assign a special unit, operating out of the National Security Agency to perpetuate the OS ... Is it me or does this sound exactly like something the Nazi's SS would do?

Originally posted by LatentElement

But to actually assign a special unit, operating out of the National Security Agency to perpetuate the OS ... Is it me or does this sound exactly like something the Nazi's SS would do?

Reminds me of in Orwell's 1984, where there were constantly people re-writing history to serve "the Party's" story of what they want people to think happened. Or didn't happen.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You know what, I can't hardly make out what exactly your point is...

It seems to me that Sunstein's Cognitive Infiltration would involve making posts that equate 911 Truth to things like, oh I don't know, Moon Landing hogwash?

I mean come on, you are actively taking part in the cognitive infiltration by linking those things together -- which is an attempt to 'undermine' the 911 truth movement. Equating something much more 'fringelike' such as the moon landing hoax conspiracy with 911 Truth is EXACTLY what Sunstein is all about.

I do not know what I believe about the moon yet, but I sure as hell know that it is NOT on the same level as 911.

I don't know, I guess I just agree with MemoryShock that these two subjects are extremely relevant to each other. Him being a moderator, I assume he posted it because of its relevance, because otherwise it would have been off topic.

reply to post by weedwhacker


So you're saying ... what?
I don't want to put words in your mouth ... they'll probably leave a bad taste.
But it seems you agree with the OS and the 9/11 commission's take on what happened on that fateful day.
You have no unanswered questions of your own? At all?

Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by Alfie1

 

The truth is, there is no difference between the two parties here.

So yeah, the way it usually works. They only ACT like opposition when not in those back-room deals.

I don't believe that to be true and I don't believe millions of voters in the US think it is true either.

I think the change of administration is ignored by truthers for two reasons :-

1/ The important thing is to keep the conspiracy allegations going whatever.

2/ The conspiracy theories are largely fueled by anti-government angst and it doesn't really matter who is in office.

reply to post by weedwhacker

What is "crippled epistomology"?

Disparate sources of information on the internet that are not government sponsored or a morning newspaper and a chuckling anchorman at 10pm?

While I will agree that there are aspects of every conspiracy that are either fallacious and/or misguided, at least it is an attempt by some to open up to the idea that there is indeed discrepancies in how our society is run and the type of information that is propagated.

If I were to state that there has been either a Bush or Clinton in the White House (President or Vice-President) and that Bush has extensive ties to the financial elite as well as political and then posit that they were trying to take over the world would I be right? Probably not to the extent of my basic conclusion but there is something assuredly not correct with how our society has chosen its' leaders. Bush Sr being a CIA Director, known for the surriptitious ways to lead public opinion just adds another bit of "Hhhmmm" to the pile.

What does that have to do with 9/11?

The amount of discrepanciess suggest that there is something there. Can we agree on what that is? No? Should we stop looking for more information? No. And I for would rather focus on more of the supporting information regarding the insurance payout on WTC 7 for terrorist acts when the building wasn't even hit.

And those are the questions that a "cognitive infiltrator" can distract from.

reply to post by Alfie1


If the 'new' administration puts a 'team' together to perpetuate the official 9/11 story then there must be an entity other than the 'party' pushing the buttons.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." - The Wizard of Oz

There is no difference between the two political parties.
What do I base that statement on?
If the policies do not change, then where is the difference?

reply to post by LatentElement


Here is the main point I tried to make:

Originally posted by weedwhacker
These "conspiracy theories" derive from the mish-mashing together of disparate, sometimes unconnected or downright incorrect bits of information, and blending them together in some new and creative way, to distort the reality of the events.

I speak in that sentence (slightly run-on as it is) to the fact of "YouTube proof" being the primary tool of so-called "9/11 Truth Movement", in general. There, of course, exceptions -- as there always are in everything.

This is similar to the "Moon hoax" proponents, and that was just a way to illustrate, NOT compare the two factions, since they have completely different 'agendas', for completely different reasons (although I suspect there is an intersecting profit motive in some instances...)


In fact, the very use of that hackeyed phrase "Official Story" shows quite well what I'm saying. It is a broad-brush attempt to very subtlely ridicule those who actually face facts, and don't get swept up into the 'conspiracy' tidal wave of increasing intensity, as little bits are exagerrated in a way similar to that game "secret" that children play. (AND, no, I'm NOT comparing the "Truth Movement advocates to children, let's nip that in the bud!)


Again, most 'conspiracies' stem from a simple lack of not having all of the facts. Sometimes, this is exacerbated by people without the proper technical skills attempting to evaluate what they see or hear, and getting it wrong, usually.


AS TO the events of 9/11 in particular? I am quite convinced of the hijackings' authenticity, because of my experience in aviation. Nothing in those events stands out to me as false in any way. None of my colleagues think so, either. Only a small, relatively vocal fringe (and we know of whom I speak) make any claims to the contrary.

My logic also tells me that the buildings could not have been pre-rigged, since the exact locations of the airplane impacts could not have been "predicted".

BUT, whether or not there is a form of 'cover-up' undertaken by the Bush administration, or factions therein? THAT I still consider 'possible', might even verge on the 'plausible' --- but the exact nature of any 'cover-up(s)' is the major question, here.

Everything should be examined, from gross incompetence and criminal negligence, to a fore-knowledge of the impending attacks, and THAT is an extremely criminal act, if true and indictable. (Personally, I would like to see as many of that Bush administration caught up in their web of lies get as much prosecution as possible, but the 'WMD' in Iraq is most obvious, and therefore should be getting more emphasis). But that sentiment is the result of my political leanings. I am not now, nor ever have been, a fan of Bush. Junior or Senior. I can honestly state that I despise them, but Bush Jr. the most.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Had to edit poor typing skills, for clarity.











[edit on 16 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

All I have to say is how about instead of infiltrating and derailing the 9/11 truth movement, the government sits down and takes the time to answer our questions and prove our points wrong by handing over the information they have that proves the official story is fact.

If the official story is true then they should have no problem doing this. Obviously, we do not feel that 9/11 Comission's final report was good enough. So how about winning the people's trust back by showing us they care about our concerns and lack of knowledge on one of the biggest events in American history.

If the government wont take the time to cater to our concerns involving 9/11, then that just proves they don't care what we think or how we feel, and will only lead to more distrust against the government.

Instead of labeling us "home grown terrorists" and eradicating us, they should show some compassion and give us reasons to trust to them again. We are not sheep in a herd, we are humans on the same planet. Don't just expect us to give our complete and utter trust without doing the same.

The government can't argue that this information is on a need to know basis for national security reasons. That only would be the government protecting themselves from us, which is what should not be happening.

The citizens need to be told the truth. If government's official story is true then take the time to prove it and put our concerns to rest forever.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by tooo many pills]

reply to post by Alfie1

Other than Zero is a muslim, and not constitutionally qualified to be president, I don't see a lot of difference... McCain barely ran a campaign... and the only person that seems to strike fear in the hearts of TPTB is the ultimate political outsider Sarah Palin. They cannot control her.

It is in the interest of both parties to keep 9/11 covered up cuz both have blood on their hands.

Going to be real interesting when the lid finally blows off.