Monday, June 26, 2006

Scientology Orientation video Part 10 of 10

Barf

(Pic is slanted since this was taken from Drudge Report Spinning)



Murtha says America poses top threat to world peace!

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Stop H.R.2679


Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Stop H.R.2679

[political-research] Digest Number 1274

Messages In This Digest (6 Messages)

Messages

1.

Re: On the Destructiveness of the No-Planer Cult

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:59 pm (PST)

Bill,

I have a fairly fast brain. I read quickly, absorb quickly, make many connections among disparate sources quickly, and tend to remember most of what I read at a detailed level, often to the page number. I know the no-planer arguments inside and out and don't require a refresher course.

What makes the no-planers quite cultlike is their inability to tolerate disagreement and dissent, and the ferocity and viciousness with which they attack better minds than themselves like David Ray Griffin, Ray McGovern and Steven Jones and impugn the worst motives to them. Gerard Holmgren especially has rubbed me the wrong way in this respect, and it was his latest attack on Griffin which set me off.

Reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the visual evidence concerning the events of 9/11. I personally give digital video evidence on anything little or no credence at all, and I don't regard the methods used to accomplish 9/11 to be anywhere near as important as the actors and motives. Whether planes were used or not to bring down the towers matters not a whit to me.

For Gerard Holmgren to attack one of the most effective voices in the 9/11 truth movement in the way he did, from a position which most Americans would regard as a crackpot conspiracy theory, smacks to me of COINTELPRO or ignorant fanaticism -- one or the other.

To move the 9/11 truth movement forward, and to ratchet up the political pressure for a real investigation, will require reaching as many mainstream American minds as possible. Attacking the most effective voices for achieving this end is suspicious, to say the least.

Bill Giltner <bill.giltner@gmail.com> wrote:
Sean,

As I've said before, (and I know it makes me sound like a suck-up),
I appreciate your contributions as the owner and major contributer
to this list.

However, I want to respond taking issue with your words here.

1) The word cult seems to be way over the top. There are people of
all sorts and opinions about what the facts of 9/11 are. I think
you are reacting to Webfairy and Holmgren, and possibly Nico.
Perhaps you've found my contributions disgusting and poorly
educated. I admit I don't always understand the battles and
approaches that the above mentioned persons follow, but if there is
indeed cult-like activity going on, I think it's more likely
organized dis-info rather than religious-like devotion to a leader
or cause.

2) I think that the evidence that supports the "no-plane" or "no
jetliner" argument about 9/11 is very strong. Of course, it creates
a huge question mark about what happened to the planes and people
alleged to be on those planes. There are other implications, of
course, as well.

This political-research list may not be the place to explore
a "unified theory" that can explain the evidence and lead us all
further down the path to solve this crime. And I understand that
the attitudes taken against D. R. Griffin appear unseemly. However,
for myself I've found the postings here that concern 9/11 research
here are a very much needed contribution to what would otherwise be
a discussion without enough direct ties to the facts and inferences
from events of 9/11.

2a.

Re: On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

Posted by: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com   bgiltner

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:22 pm (PST)

--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
<smcbride2@...> wrote:
>
> On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

No Grad Degree, 2nd Tier Undergrad: B.S. Econ, Vanderbilt, 1980

2b.

Re: On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:35 pm (PST)

Perhaps this accounts for the fact that generally you are able to present your ideas more reasonably and effectively than Gerard Holmgren and Webfairy.

If you want a good example of how disciplined minds can conduct themselves on the hottest of topics, check out John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's measured replies to their critics and attackers.

If I were you, I would put a very great distance between yourself and Gerard Holmgren. His posts are the kiss of death. Many people are going to have an allergic reaction to him personally, and transfer their hostility to anything with which he is associated.


Bill Giltner <bill.giltner@gmail.com> wrote:
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
<smcbride2@...> wrote:
>
> On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

No Grad Degree, 2nd Tier Undergrad: B.S. Econ, Vanderbilt, 1980

3.

How America is rapidly becoming a police state

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:38 pm (PST)

<http://www.counterthink.org/019444.html>

Excerpt:

For years I've been warning my readers about the coming police state and the abusive use of power by the Bush administration. This year, we have learned that President Bush -- or should I say King George Bush -- personally authorized domestic spying on American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA). In articles that have appeared in the New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post and other national news papers, George Bush admitted that he personally signed off on 30 illegal surveillance wiretaps, and furthermore, he defended the practice, explaining that wiretapping American citizens was saving American lives because of the war on terror. Furthermore, he explained he was doing everything in his power under the laws of the Constitution to protect U.S. citizens and their civil liberties.

The degree of doublespeak being used by George Bush in that statement is extraordinary. His lack of historical context is utterly jaw-dropping. The man is becoming the Stalin of the United States. He is destroying our civil liberties and the Constitution, while simultaneously claiming that he is protecting the Constitution and the civil liberties of the American people. What could be more sinister than using our own intelligence services to spy on the American people? This is more than a little reminiscent of the secret police of Nazi Germany.

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

4.

On Building an Effective 9/11 Truth Movement

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:45 pm (PST)

On Building an Effective 9/11 Truth Movement

Building an effective 9/11 truth movement, one which may be able to acquire enough steam to inspire the American people to demand answers for the hundreds of outstanding questions about 9/11, will require enlisting as many sincere and bright minds as possible. Accomplishing this will require tolerating a wide range of diverse opinions and theories about what really happened on 9/11. The only price of admission should be the willingness to challenge the official story, using facts and reason.

Any parties in the movement that are engaging in COINTELPRO-style attacks on the most effective voices for opening up a real official investigation into 9/11 should be thoroughly ostracized and ignored, in my opinion -- not given the time of day. They are working to destroy effective coalition-building of the kind that is necessary to push 9/11 to the front and center of the American political agenda.

If no-planers want to be taken seriously, they will have to treat other 9/11 skeptics, all across the spectrum, with civility and respect. Otherwise, they will understandably become the targets of the very same abuse they are dishing out.

5.

9/11 conspiracy theorists gather at LA conference

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:37 pm (PST)


<http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060625/3/2mcmh.html>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

We Made Changes

Your Yahoo! Groups email is all new.

Learn More

SPONSORED LINKS
Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss

They did not like 'casual Friday'


They did not like 'casual Friday', originally uploaded by Rune T.

And I thought the whole point of casual Friday was no dress code... ;)

Actually this was taken during a street parade in Oslo. A fun detail is that
their feet are in sync as kiso has pointed out in the comments.


[political-research] Digest Number 1273

Messages In This Digest (25 Messages)

1a.
[Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence] From: The Webfairy
1b.
Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence] From: Sean McBride
1c.
Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence] From: The Webfairy
1d.
Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence] From: Sean McBride
1e.
Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence] From: The Webfairy
1f.
On the Destructiveness of the No-Planer Cult From: Sean McBride
1g.
Re: On the Destructiveness of the No-Planer Cult From: Bill Giltner
2.
Saddam ends hunger strike after missing one meal  (Reuters) From: better_off_said
3.
Re: INFOWAR:  Ghost Troop Counterattacks Bush League Disinfo (attn: From: The Webfairy
4a.
Re: Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says From: LeaNder
4b.
Re: Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says From: Sean McBride
4c.
Re: Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says From: LeaNder
5.
Robert Dreyfuss: Sunni -- or Sunny? (The Sears Tower Plot) From: Sean McBride
6.
Murdoch, Razl Dazl, Holmgren, Australia, Israel, etc. From: Sean McBride
7.
FBI-CIA Use Western Union As Deadly Weapon From: Sean McBride
8.
In Defense of Measheimer-Walt From: Sean McBride
9.
COINTELPRO-Style Ops in the 9/11 Research Community From: Sean McBride
10.
Greenland Ice Caps Melting at Staggering Pace From: Sean McBride
11.
MondoWeiss: The Israel Lobby and Joe Lieberman From: Sean McBride
12.
[Fwd: [ Re:  Reading DRG  "In Context"] From: The Webfairy
13.
U.S. Due to Hit 300 Million This Fall From: Sean McBride
14.
Gerard Holmgren Appears to Be Israeli COINTELPRO Op From: Sean McBride
15.
On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers From: Sean McBride
16.
Re: [apfn-1] Re: [ctrl] Gerard Holmgren Appears To Be an Israeli COI From: Sean McBride
17.
On the Evidential Value of Digital Photos, Video and Audio From: Sean McBride

Messages

1a.

[Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence]

Posted by: "The Webfairy" webfairy@thewebfairy.com   the_webfairy

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:01 am (PST)



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>

Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are met with
terrified silence.

Why ?

Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs which they
hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply presenting
what they believe to be the truth.

Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC buildings were
demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of simply
restating this view?

Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore or even
attack/ridicule these views ?

Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such views - as "a
great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"

Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up a copy"
of the book in public ?

Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit for the
work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the comments of
those who describe him as a "researcher"?

I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this constant chant,
but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's done
again here.

Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less genuine and
simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult master, or
whether he knew what he doing.

His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm that he
knows exactly what he is doing.

The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any number of
contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as they are
good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian should be at
the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most how to
construct a cult/religion which will become popular.

The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic foundation
of this cult. Double think.

I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in direct
contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the other.

That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of "truth
movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not hitting the
pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
simultaneously.

Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is determined by
what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no purpose
other than being good for itself.

Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly believe a
word of what'a in his book ?

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"

"3."

And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"

"Then its four."

"And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"

"Then its both 3 and 4."

"Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"

"Because it's the truth."

And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"

"Because its good for the truth movement."

By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was asking him to
violate the most basic rule of his cult.

Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by answering
the question.

I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no hesitation
in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.


-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones'; 'FORD@NAU.EDU';
'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds'; 'rick
siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt'; 'PlaguePuppy';
'palast@gregpalast.com'; 'marcus icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
'jr@rense.com'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy Walter';
'chossudovsky@videotron.ca'; 'BarHonegger@aol.com'; 'angiesept11';
'amysasser@gmail.com'; 'alex Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net';
'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net'; 'tarpley@radix.net'; 'Tim
Canale'
Subject: DRG - please answer the question

I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition of all 3
WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane hit the
pentagon.

Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these questions without
drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
investigation.

David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?

1b.

Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence]

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:51 am (PST)

Gerard Holmgren strikes me as the very worst of the worst in the 9/11 truth movement -- an obnoxious and destructive zealot who absurdly manages to work up ferocious certitude about matters that are purely speculative. David Ray Griffin is vastly his superior in every conceivable department. Holmgren is the best example I've seen to date of how a COINTELPRO op is supposed to work in wreaking havoc among a political movement. This is how it is done -- swing an axe against everyone who is most effective in the movement and reduce it to vicious internal factionalism and chaos.

Is Holmgren Australian, by the way? So far I haven't seen in his posts the least glimmer of understanding or even consciousness of what is going on in American politics or the world in general. He knows none of the key players in American politics or their writings and background. Apparently he has studied very little about any serious subject, not to mention the political and intellectual history of the United States and neoconservatism.

Whether or not real planes were used on 9/11 is entirely peripheral to the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did they do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the endgame they have in mind? *HOW* they did it it is relatively a minor detail, and a question that be answered only if the conspirators can be brought to justice and their testimony brought to light. The only conceivable way that can happen is if the minds of enough influential people in the political mainstream -- NOT at the political fringe -- can be focused on this subject. Holmgren and people like him are getting in the way of achieving that objective. They should simply shut up.

You know, one of the main purposes of acquiring an education in the liberal arts -- in literature, history and related subjects -- is to learn that the world is highly complex and diverse, and that it is the height of insanity to demand complete agreement from others on whatever it is one believes about the world.

Educated minds see all of world history as an endless and evolutionary dialectic among diverse views and theories about the world -- the circle can never be closed. Uneducated minds are highly susceptible to totalitarian and fundamentalist movements of all kinds. Utopia now.


The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com> wrote:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>

Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are met with
terrified silence.

Why ?

Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs which they
hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply presenting
what they believe to be the truth.

Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC buildings were
demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of simply
restating this view?

Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore or even
attack/ridicule these views ?

Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such views - as "a
great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"

Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up a copy"
of the book in public ?

Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit for the
work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the comments of
those who describe him as a "researcher"?

I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this constant chant,
but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's done
again here.

Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less genuine and
simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult master, or
whether he knew what he doing.

His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm that he
knows exactly what he is doing.

The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any number of
contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as they are
good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian should be at
the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most how to
construct a cult/religion which will become popular.

The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic foundation
of this cult. Double think.

I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in direct
contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the other.

That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of "truth
movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not hitting the
pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
simultaneously.

Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is determined by
what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no purpose
other than being good for itself.

Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly believe a
word of what'a in his book ?

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"

"3."

And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"

"Then its four."

"And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"

"Then its both 3 and 4."

"Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"

"Because it's the truth."

And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"

"Because its good for the truth movement."

By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was asking him to
violate the most basic rule of his cult.

Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by answering
the question.

I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no hesitation
in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones'; 'FORD@NAU.EDU';
'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds'; 'rick
siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt'; 'PlaguePuppy';
'palast@gregpalast.com'; 'marcus icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
'jr@rense.com'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy Walter';
'chossudovsky@videotron.ca'; 'BarHonegger@aol.com'; 'angiesept11';
'amysasser@gmail.com'; 'alex Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net';
'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net'; 'tarpley@radix.net'; 'Tim
Canale'
Subject: DRG - please answer the question

I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition of all 3
WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane hit the
pentagon.

Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these questions without
drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
investigation.

David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?

1c.

Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence]

Posted by: "The Webfairy" webfairy@thewebfairy.com   the_webfairy

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:21 am (PST)

Whether 911 happened as advertised, or was a mass murder media hoax to
enslave us with lies needs to be the central question.
The answers of who did it and why they did it become clear once one
realizes the first hit goes off with no plane in sight and the second
hit trauma conditioned us with cartoons created as audio-visual aids for
the war games and terror drills "coincidentally" planned for the same day.

There's no way to spin the news they didn't really use planes.
It is useful information to exactly no faction at all. Completely
apolitical.

It gives us a compass out of the ratmaze.
Raw naked truth has it's own power
Kaminski adopted the no plane information for a very short time, later
admitting he thought it had antisemitic value, but dropped it when it
didn't prove useful for that.

The fact they didn't really use planes, which is provable from forensic
crime scene video and government databases besides, shows the corruption
at the core of our cognitive processes.
Holmgren's essay strikes clearly at the Orwellian intent of the 911 Hoax
and it's two faced exposure/coverup artists.

Sean McBride wrote:
> Gerard Holmgren strikes me as the very worst of the worst in the 9/11
> truth movement -- an obnoxious and destructive zealot who absurdly
> manages to work up ferocious certitude about matters that are purely
> speculative. David Ray Griffin is vastly his superior in every
> conceivable department. Holmgren is the best example I've seen to
> date of how a COINTELPRO op is supposed to work in wreaking havoc
> among a political movement. This is how it is done -- swing an axe
> against everyone who is most effective in the movement and reduce it
> to vicious internal factionalism and chaos.
>
> Is Holmgren Australian, by the way? So far I haven't seen in his
> posts the least glimmer of understanding or even consciousness of what
> is going on in American politics or the world in general. He knows
> none of the key players in American politics or their writings and
> background. Apparently he has studied very little about any serious
> subject, not to mention the political and intellectual history of the
> United States and neoconservatism.
>
> Whether or not real planes were used on 9/11 is entirely peripheral to
> the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did
> they do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the
> endgame they have in mind? *HOW* they did it it is relatively a minor
> detail, and a question that be answered only if the conspirators can
> be brought to justice and their testimony brought to light. The only
> conceivable way that can happen is if the minds of enough influential
> people in the political mainstream -- NOT at the political fringe --
> can be focused on this subject. Holmgren and people like him are
> getting in the way of achieving that objective. They should simply
> shut up.
>
> You know, one of the main purposes of acquiring an education in the
> liberal arts -- in literature, history and related subjects -- is to
> learn that the world is highly complex and diverse, and that it is the
> height of insanity to demand complete agreement from others on
> whatever it is one believes about the world.
>
> Educated minds see all of world history as an endless and evolutionary
> dialectic among diverse views and theories about the world -- the
> circle can never be closed. Uneducated minds are highly susceptible
> to totalitarian and fundamentalist movements of all kinds. Utopia now.
>
>
> */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>/* wrote:
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
> From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>>
>
> Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are
> met with
> terrified silence.
>
> Why ?
>
> Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs
> which they
> hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply
> presenting
> what they believe to be the truth.
>
> Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC
> buildings were
> demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of
> simply
> restating this view?
>
> Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore
> or even
> attack/ridicule these views ?
>
> Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such
> views - as "a
> great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"
>
> Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
> propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up
> a copy"
> of the book in public ?
>
> Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit
> for the
> work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the
> comments of
> those who describe him as a "researcher"?
>
> I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this
> constant chant,
> but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's
> done
> again here.
>
> Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less genuine and
> simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult
> master, or
> whether he knew what he doing.
>
> His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm
> that he
> knows exactly what he is doing.
>
> The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any
> number of
> contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as
> they are
> good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian
> should be at
> the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most
> how to
> construct a cult/religion which will become popular.
>
> The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic
> foundation
> of this cult. Double think.
>
> I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in
> direct
> contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the
> other.
>
> That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of
> "truth
> movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not
> hitting the
> pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
> simultaneously.
>
> Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is
> determined by
> what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no
> purpose
> other than being good for itself.
>
> Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly
> believe a
> word of what'a in his book ?
>
> "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"
>
> "3."
>
> And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"
>
> "Then its four."
>
> "And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"
>
> "Then its both 3 and 4."
>
> "Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"
>
> "Because it's the truth."
>
> And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"
>
> "Because its good for the truth movement."
>
> By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was
> asking him to
> violate the most basic rule of his cult.
>
> Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by
> answering
> the question.
>
> I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no
> hesitation
> in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>]
> Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
> To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
> Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones';
> 'FORD@NAU.EDU <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>';
> 'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds'; 'rick
> siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt'; 'PlaguePuppy';
> 'palast@gregpalast.com <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>';
> 'marcus icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
> 'jr@rense.com <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy
> Walter';
> 'chossudovsky@videotron.ca
> <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>'; 'BarHonegger@aol.com
> <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>'; 'angiesept11';
> 'amysasser@gmail.com <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>'; 'alex
> Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
> <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>';
> 'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net
> <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>'; 'tarpley@radix.net
> <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>'; 'Tim
> Canale'
> Subject: DRG - please answer the question
>
> I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition
> of all 3
> WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane
> hit the
> pentagon.
>
> Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these
> questions without
> drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
> investigation.
>
> David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?
>
>
>

1d.

Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence]

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:45 am (PST)

You have managed to miss the main point entirely.

The WHO and WHY behind a criminal conspiracy are much more important than the HOW -- the method used to enact the conspiracy. Whether a criminal murders someone with a knife or a gun is much less important than the fact that the crime has been committed, and much less important than the identity of the criminal and the motive for the crime.

Let me put this plainly: people who get over-focused on the HOW of 9/11, on the basis of flimsy evidence, are quite stupid, and in some cases clearly psychotic. They are not worth the time of day. No serious person will pay any attention to them.

When these people, with their weird distorted priorities about analyzing a crime, begin to engage in vicious personal attacks on serious investigators, people with their priorities in order, then you really do have to start wondering about the presence of COINTELPRO-style ops.

David Ray Griffin is far out of Gerard Holmgren's league in every respect. Holmgren, who fits the Murdoch/Razl Dazl profile in important respects, is attacking Griffin precisely because Griffin has been so influential in opening up the minds of many mainstream political figures about 9/11.

Some interesting variables:

attacks on the most effective 9/11 skeptics
the Australian connection
the Israeli connection
the neoconservative connection
use of the anti-Semitism smear
verbal violence and personal attacks

The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com> wrote:
Whether 911 happened as advertised, or was a mass murder media hoax to
enslave us with lies needs to be the central question.
The answers of who did it and why they did it become clear once one
realizes the first hit goes off with no plane in sight and the second
hit trauma conditioned us with cartoons created as audio-visual aids for
the war games and terror drills "coincidentally" planned for the same day.

There's no way to spin the news they didn't really use planes.
It is useful information to exactly no faction at all. Completely
apolitical.

It gives us a compass out of the ratmaze.
Raw naked truth has it's own power
Kaminski adopted the no plane information for a very short time, later
admitting he thought it had antisemitic value, but dropped it when it
didn't prove useful for that.

The fact they didn't really use planes, which is provable from forensic
crime scene video and government databases besides, shows the corruption
at the core of our cognitive processes.
Holmgren's essay strikes clearly at the Orwellian intent of the 911 Hoax
and it's two faced exposure/coverup artists.

Sean McBride wrote:
> Gerard Holmgren strikes me as the very worst of the worst in the 9/11
> truth movement -- an obnoxious and destructive zealot who absurdly
> manages to work up ferocious certitude about matters that are purely
> speculative. David Ray Griffin is vastly his superior in every
> conceivable department. Holmgren is the best example I've seen to
> date of how a COINTELPRO op is supposed to work in wreaking havoc
> among a political movement. This is how it is done -- swing an axe
> against everyone who is most effective in the movement and reduce it
> to vicious internal factionalism and chaos.
>
> Is Holmgren Australian, by the way? So far I haven't seen in his
> posts the least glimmer of understanding or even consciousness of what
> is going on in American politics or the world in general. He knows
> none of the key players in American politics or their writings and
> background. Apparently he has studied very little about any serious
> subject, not to mention the political and intellectual history of the
> United States and neoconservatism.
>
> Whether or not real planes were used on 9/11 is entirely peripheral to
> the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did
> they do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the
> endgame they have in mind? *HOW* they did it it is relatively a minor
> detail, and a question that be answered only if the conspirators can
> be brought to justice and their testimony brought to light. The only
> conceivable way that can happen is if the minds of enough influential
> people in the political mainstream -- NOT at the political fringe --
> can be focused on this subject. Holmgren and people like him are
> getting in the way of achieving that objective. They should simply
> shut up.
>
> You know, one of the main purposes of acquiring an education in the
> liberal arts -- in literature, history and related subjects -- is to
> learn that the world is highly complex and diverse, and that it is the
> height of insanity to demand complete agreement from others on
> whatever it is one believes about the world.
>
> Educated minds see all of world history as an endless and evolutionary
> dialectic among diverse views and theories about the world -- the
> circle can never be closed. Uneducated minds are highly susceptible
> to totalitarian and fundamentalist movements of all kinds. Utopia now.
>
>
> */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>/* wrote:
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
> From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>>
>
> Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are
> met with
> terrified silence.
>
> Why ?
>
> Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs
> which they
> hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply
> presenting
> what they believe to be the truth.
>
> Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC
> buildings were
> demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of
> simply
> restating this view?
>
> Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore
> or even
> attack/ridicule these views ?
>
> Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such
> views - as "a
> great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"
>
> Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
> propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up
> a copy"
> of the book in public ?
>
> Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit
> for the
> work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the
> comments of
> those who describe him as a "researcher"?
>
> I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this
> constant chant,
> but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's
> done
> again here.
>
> Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less genuine and
> simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult
> master, or
> whether he knew what he doing.
>
> His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm
> that he
> knows exactly what he is doing.
>
> The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any
> number of
> contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as
> they are
> good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian
> should be at
> the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most
> how to
> construct a cult/religion which will become popular.
>
> The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic
> foundation
> of this cult. Double think.
>
> I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in
> direct
> contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the
> other.
>
> That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of
> "truth
> movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not
> hitting the
> pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
> simultaneously.
>
> Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is
> determined by
> what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no
> purpose
> other than being good for itself.
>
> Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly
> believe a
> word of what'a in his book ?
>
> "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"
>
> "3."
>
> And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"
>
> "Then its four."
>
> "And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"
>
> "Then its both 3 and 4."
>
> "Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"
>
> "Because it's the truth."
>
> And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"
>
> "Because its good for the truth movement."
>
> By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was
> asking him to
> violate the most basic rule of his cult.
>
> Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by
> answering
> the question.
>
> I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no
> hesitation
> in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>]
> Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
> To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
> Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones';
> 'FORD@NAU.EDU <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>';
> 'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds'; 'rick
> siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt'; 'PlaguePuppy';
> 'palast@gregpalast.com <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>';
> 'marcus icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
> 'jr@rense.com <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy
> Walter';
> 'chossudovsky@videotron.ca
> <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>'; 'BarHonegger@aol.com
> <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>'; 'angiesept11';
> 'amysasser@gmail.com <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>'; 'alex
> Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
> <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>';
> 'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net
> <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>'; 'tarpley@radix.net
> <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>'; 'Tim
> Canale'
> Subject: DRG - please answer the question
>
> I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition
> of all 3
> WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane
> hit the
> pentagon.
>
> Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these
> questions without
> drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
> investigation.
>
> David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?
>
>
>

1e.

Re: [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his silence]

Posted by: "The Webfairy" webfairy@thewebfairy.com   the_webfairy

Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:57 pm (PST)

The Frameup on Humanity has used 911 to frame every issue.
They want people to know just enough about 911 to get upset, but they
want them to remain fuzzy about what they're upset about.
While he poses as a great truth hero, his planehugging poisons every
word as he shoots fish in a barrell as far as "omissions and
distortions" in the 911 Coverup Commission Report.
It is permissible to expose anything except the fact there was no planes.

Traitors to Humanity hold up Griffin's book like it's some bible,
even if
they don't agree with a word in it.
This gives them respectable cover while they attack the content of the
book and the people who did the research Griffin uses.
Meanwhile Griffin keeps himself in some hermetically sealed vault,
beyond the reach of fresh information.
A globalist theologian that bearing smarmy half truth Hence, Ruppert
and Rabidnitwitz can all agree with has to be a disguised perp.
Those are the only ones issued haloes and free passes by the coup."
- WEBFAIRY

Sean McBride wrote:
> You have managed to miss the main point entirely.
>
> The WHO and WHY behind a criminal conspiracy are much more important
> than the HOW -- the method used to enact the conspiracy. Whether a
> criminal murders someone with a knife or a gun is much less important
> than the fact that the crime has been committed, and much less
> important than the identity of the criminal and the motive for the crime.
>
> Let me put this plainly: people who get over-focused on the HOW of
> 9/11, on the basis of flimsy evidence, are quite stupid, and in some
> cases clearly psychotic. They are not worth the time of day. No
> serious person will pay any attention to them.
>
> When these people, with their weird distorted priorities about
> analyzing a crime, begin to engage in vicious personal attacks on
> serious investigators, people with their priorities in order, then you
> really do have to start wondering about the presence of
> COINTELPRO-style ops.
>
> David Ray Griffin is far out of Gerard Holmgren's league in every
> respect. Holmgren, who fits the Murdoch/Razl Dazl profile in
> important respects, is attacking Griffin precisely because Griffin has
> been so influential in opening up the minds of many mainstream
> political figures about 9/11.
>
> Some interesting variables:
>
> attacks on the most effective 9/11 skeptics
> the Australian connection
> the Israeli connection
> the neoconservative connection
> use of the anti-Semitism smear
> verbal violence and personal attacks
>
> */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>/* wrote:
>
> Whether 911 happened as advertised, or was a mass murder media
> hoax to
> enslave us with lies needs to be the central question.
> The answers of who did it and why they did it become clear once one
> realizes the first hit goes off with no plane in sight and the second
> hit trauma conditioned us with cartoons created as audio-visual
> aids for
> the war games and terror drills "coincidentally" planned for the
> same day.
>
> There's no way to spin the news they didn't really use planes.
> It is useful information to exactly no faction at all. Completely
> apolitical.
>
> It gives us a compass out of the ratmaze.
> Raw naked truth has it's own power
> Kaminski adopted the no plane information for a very short time,
> later
> admitting he thought it had antisemitic value, but dropped it when it
> didn't prove useful for that.
>
> The fact they didn't really use planes, which is provable from
> forensic
> crime scene video and government databases besides, shows the
> corruption
> at the core of our cognitive processes.
> Holmgren's essay strikes clearly at the Orwellian intent of the
> 911 Hoax
> and it's two faced exposure/coverup artists.
>
> Sean McBride wrote:
> > Gerard Holmgren strikes me as the very worst of the worst in the
> 9/11
> > truth movement -- an obnoxious and destructive zealot who absurdly
> > manages to work up ferocious certitude about matters that are
> purely
> > speculative. David Ray Griffin is vastly his superior in every
> > conceivable department. Holmgren is the best example I've seen to
> > date of how a COINTELPRO op is supposed to work in wreaking havoc
> > among a political movement. This is how it is done -- swing an axe
> > against everyone who is most effective in the movement and
> reduce it
> > to vicious internal factionalism and chaos.
> >
> > Is Holmgren Australian, by the way? So far I haven't seen in his
> > posts the least glimmer of understanding or even consciousness
> of what
> > is going on in American politics or the world in general. He knows
> > none of the key players in American politics or their writings and
> > background. Apparently he has studied very little about any serious
> > subject, not to mention the political and intellectual history
> of the
> > United States and neoconservatism.
> >
> > Whether or not real planes were used on 9/11 is entirely
> peripheral to
> > the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did
> > they do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the
> > endgame they have in mind? *HOW* they did it it is relatively a
> minor
> > detail, and a question that be answered only if the conspirators
> can
> > be brought to justice and their testimony brought to light. The
> only
> > conceivable way that can happen is if the minds of enough
> influential
> > people in the political mainstream -- NOT at the political
> fringe --
> > can be focused on this subject. Holmgren and people like him are
> > getting in the way of achieving that objective. They should simply
> > shut up.
> >
> > You know, one of the main purposes of acquiring an education in the
> > liberal arts -- in literature, history and related subjects --
> is to
> > learn that the world is highly complex and diverse, and that it
> is the
> > height of insanity to demand complete agreement from others on
> > whatever it is one believes about the world.
> >
> > Educated minds see all of world history as an endless and
> evolutionary
> > dialectic among diverse views and theories about the world -- the
> > circle can never be closed. Uneducated minds are highly susceptible
> > to totalitarian and fundamentalist movements of all kinds.
> Utopia now.
> >
> >
> > */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com
> <mailto:webfairy%40thewebfairy.com>>/* wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
> > Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
> > From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>
> > <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>>
> >
> > Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are
> > met with
> > terrified silence.
> >
> > Why ?
> >
> > Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs
> > which they
> > hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply
> > presenting
> > what they believe to be the truth.
> >
> > Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC
> > buildings were
> > demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of
> > simply
> > restating this view?
> >
> > Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore
> > or even
> > attack/ridicule these views ?
> >
> > Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such
> > views - as "a
> > great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"
> >
> > Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
> > propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up
> > a copy"
> > of the book in public ?
> >
> > Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit
> > for the
> > work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the
> > comments of
> > those who describe him as a "researcher"?
> >
> > I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this
> > constant chant,
> > but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's
> > done
> > again here.
> >
> > Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less
> genuine and
> > simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult
> > master, or
> > whether he knew what he doing.
> >
> > His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm
> > that he
> > knows exactly what he is doing.
> >
> > The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any
> > number of
> > contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as
> > they are
> > good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian
> > should be at
> > the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most
> > how to
> > construct a cult/religion which will become popular.
> >
> > The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic
> > foundation
> > of this cult. Double think.
> >
> > I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in
> > direct
> > contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the
> > other.
> >
> > That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of
> > "truth
> > movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not
> > hitting the
> > pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is
> > determined by
> > what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no
> > purpose
> > other than being good for itself.
> >
> > Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly
> > believe a
> > word of what'a in his book ?
> >
> > "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"
> >
> > "3."
> >
> > And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"
> >
> > "Then its four."
> >
> > "And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"
> >
> > "Then its both 3 and 4."
> >
> > "Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"
> >
> > "Because it's the truth."
> >
> > And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"
> >
> > "Because its good for the truth movement."
> >
> > By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was
> > asking him to
> > violate the most basic rule of his cult.
> >
> > Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by
> > answering
> > the question.
> >
> > I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no
> > hesitation
> > in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>
> > <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>]
> > Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
> > To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
> > Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones';
> > 'FORD@NAU.EDU <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>
> <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>';
> > 'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds';
> 'rick
> > siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt';
> 'PlaguePuppy';
> > 'palast@gregpalast.com <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>
> <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>';
> > 'marcus icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
> > 'jr@rense.com <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>
> <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy
> > Walter';
> > 'chossudovsky@videotron.ca <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>
> > <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>'; 'BarHonegger@aol.com
> <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>
> > <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>'; 'angiesept11';
> > 'amysasser@gmail.com <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>'; 'alex
> > Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
> <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>
> > <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>';
> > 'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net
> <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>
> > <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>'; 'tarpley@radix.net
> <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>
> > <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>'; 'Tim
> > Canale'
> > Subject: DRG - please answer the question
> >
> > I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition
> > of all 3
> > WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane
> > hit the
> > pentagon.
> >
> > Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these
> > questions without
> > drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
> > investigation.
> >
> > David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?
> >
> >
> >
>

1f.

On the Destructiveness of the No-Planer Cult

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:29 pm (PST)

I imagine that David Ray Griffin doesn't want to waste his time in interactions with disgusting and poorly educated fanatics. Smart man.

You have finally, after several years, managed to turn me into an enemy. You failed to answer any of the main points in my recent points, which were substantive and thoughtful. I think that you and your fellow no-planers are pure poison for the 9/11 truth movement -- certainly Gerard Holmgren ranks among the most destructive personalities I've ever encountered on the net, right up there with his fellow Aussie and pro-Israel militant Razl Dazl. His vicious attacks on his betters make me ill.

I repeat: I don't care whether real planes hit the WTC or not -- the issue is immaterial to me. Making this subject the focus of bitter factional holy wars in the 9/11 research community is either the product of clinical psychosis or of a COINTELPRO-style op. There is no other possibility. You don't get this, and you never will.

The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com> wrote:
The Frameup on Humanity has used 911 to frame every issue.
They want people to know just enough about 911 to get upset, but they
want them to remain fuzzy about what they're upset about.
While he poses as a great truth hero, his planehugging poisons every
word as he shoots fish in a barrell as far as "omissions and
distortions" in the 911 Coverup Commission Report.
It is permissible to expose anything except the fact there was no planes.

Traitors to Humanity hold up Griffin's book like it's some bible,
even if
they don't agree with a word in it.
This gives them respectable cover while they attack the content of the
book and the people who did the research Griffin uses.
Meanwhile Griffin keeps himself in some hermetically sealed vault,
beyond the reach of fresh information.
A globalist theologian that bearing smarmy half truth Hence, Ruppert
and Rabidnitwitz can all agree with has to be a disguised perp.
Those are the only ones issued haloes and free passes by the coup."
- WEBFAIRY

Sean McBride wrote:
> You have managed to miss the main point entirely.
>
> The WHO and WHY behind a criminal conspiracy are much more important
> than the HOW -- the method used to enact the conspiracy. Whether a
> criminal murders someone with a knife or a gun is much less important
> than the fact that the crime has been committed, and much less
> important than the identity of the criminal and the motive for the crime.
>
> Let me put this plainly: people who get over-focused on the HOW of
> 9/11, on the basis of flimsy evidence, are quite stupid, and in some
> cases clearly psychotic. They are not worth the time of day. No
> serious person will pay any attention to them.
>
> When these people, with their weird distorted priorities about
> analyzing a crime, begin to engage in vicious personal attacks on
> serious investigators, people with their priorities in order, then you
> really do have to start wondering about the presence of
> COINTELPRO-style ops.
>
> David Ray Griffin is far out of Gerard Holmgren's league in every
> respect. Holmgren, who fits the Murdoch/Razl Dazl profile in
> important respects, is attacking Griffin precisely because Griffin has
> been so influential in opening up the minds of many mainstream
> political figures about 9/11.
>
> Some interesting variables:
>
> attacks on the most effective 9/11 skeptics
> the Australian connection
> the Israeli connection
> the neoconservative connection
> use of the anti-Semitism smear
> verbal violence and personal attacks
>
> */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>/* wrote:
>
> Whether 911 happened as advertised, or was a mass murder media
> hoax to
> enslave us with lies needs to be the central question.
> The answers of who did it and why they did it become clear once one
> realizes the first hit goes off with no plane in sight and the second
> hit trauma conditioned us with cartoons created as audio-visual
> aids for
> the war games and terror drills "coincidentally" planned for the
> same day.
>
> There's no way to spin the news they didn't really use planes.
> It is useful information to exactly no faction at all. Completely
> apolitical.
>
> It gives us a compass out of the ratmaze.
> Raw naked truth has it's own power
> Kaminski adopted the no plane information for a very short time,
> later
> admitting he thought it had antisemitic value, but dropped it when it
> didn't prove useful for that.
>
> The fact they didn't really use planes, which is provable from
> forensic
> crime scene video and government databases besides, shows the
> corruption
> at the core of our cognitive processes.
> Holmgren's essay strikes clearly at the Orwellian intent of the
> 911 Hoax
> and it's two faced exposure/coverup artists.
>
> Sean McBride wrote:
> > Gerard Holmgren strikes me as the very worst of the worst in the
> 9/11
> > truth movement -- an obnoxious and destructive zealot who absurdly
> > manages to work up ferocious certitude about matters that are
> purely
> > speculative. David Ray Griffin is vastly his superior in every
> > conceivable department. Holmgren is the best example I've seen to
> > date of how a COINTELPRO op is supposed to work in wreaking havoc
> > among a political movement. This is how it is done -- swing an axe
> > against everyone who is most effective in the movement and
> reduce it
> > to vicious internal factionalism and chaos.
> >
> > Is Holmgren Australian, by the way? So far I haven't seen in his
> > posts the least glimmer of understanding or even consciousness
> of what
> > is going on in American politics or the world in general. He knows
> > none of the key players in American politics or their writings and
> > background. Apparently he has studied very little about any serious
> > subject, not to mention the political and intellectual history
> of the
> > United States and neoconservatism.
> >
> > Whether or not real planes were used on 9/11 is entirely
> peripheral to
> > the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did
> > they do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the
> > endgame they have in mind? *HOW* they did it it is relatively a
> minor
> > detail, and a question that be answered only if the conspirators
> can
> > be brought to justice and their testimony brought to light. The
> only
> > conceivable way that can happen is if the minds of enough
> influential
> > people in the political mainstream -- NOT at the political
> fringe --
> > can be focused on this subject. Holmgren and people like him are
> > getting in the way of achieving that objective. They should simply
> > shut up.
> >
> > You know, one of the main purposes of acquiring an education in the
> > liberal arts -- in literature, history and related subjects --
> is to
> > learn that the world is highly complex and diverse, and that it
> is the
> > height of insanity to demand complete agreement from others on
> > whatever it is one believes about the world.
> >
> > Educated minds see all of world history as an endless and
> evolutionary
> > dialectic among diverse views and theories about the world -- the
> > circle can never be closed. Uneducated minds are highly susceptible
> > to totalitarian and fundamentalist movements of all kinds.
> Utopia now.
> >
> >
> > */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com
> <mailto:webfairy%40thewebfairy.com>>/* wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
> > Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
> > From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>
> > <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>>
> >
> > Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are
> > met with
> > terrified silence.
> >
> > Why ?
> >
> > Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs
> > which they
> > hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply
> > presenting
> > what they believe to be the truth.
> >
> > Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC
> > buildings were
> > demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of
> > simply
> > restating this view?
> >
> > Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore
> > or even
> > attack/ridicule these views ?
> >
> > Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such
> > views - as "a
> > great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"
> >
> > Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
> > propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up
> > a copy"
> > of the book in public ?
> >
> > Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit
> > for the
> > work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the
> > comments of
> > those who describe him as a "researcher"?
> >
> > I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this
> > constant chant,
> > but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's
> > done
> > again here.
> >
> > Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less
> genuine and
> > simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult
> > master, or
> > whether he knew what he doing.
> >
> > His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm
> > that he
> > knows exactly what he is doing.
> >
> > The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any
> > number of
> > contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as
> > they are
> > good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian
> > should be at
> > the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most
> > how to
> > construct a cult/religion which will become popular.
> >
> > The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic
> > foundation
> > of this cult. Double think.
> >
> > I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in
> > direct
> > contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the
> > other.
> >
> > That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of
> > "truth
> > movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not
> > hitting the
> > pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is
> > determined by
> > what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no
> > purpose
> > other than being good for itself.
> >
> > Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly
> > believe a
> > word of what'a in his book ?
> >
> > "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"
> >
> > "3."
> >
> > And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"
> >
> > "Then its four."
> >
> > "And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"
> >
> > "Then its both 3 and 4."
> >
> > "Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"
> >
> > "Because it's the truth."
> >
> > And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"
> >
> > "Because its good for the truth movement."
> >
> > By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was
> > asking him to
> > violate the most basic rule of his cult.
> >
> > Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by
> > answering
> > the question.
> >
> > I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no
> > hesitation
> > in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>
> > <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>]
> > Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
> > To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
> > Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones';
> > 'FORD@NAU.EDU <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>
> <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>';
> > 'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds';
> 'rick
> > siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt';
> 'PlaguePuppy';
> > 'palast@gregpalast.com <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>
> <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>';
> > 'marcus icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
> > 'jr@rense.com <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>
> <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy
> > Walter';
> > 'chossudovsky@videotron.ca <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>
> > <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>'; 'BarHonegger@aol.com
> <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>
> > <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>'; 'angiesept11';
> > 'amysasser@gmail.com <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>'; 'alex
> > Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
> <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>
> > <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>';
> > 'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net
> <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>
> > <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>'; 'tarpley@radix.net
> <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>
> > <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>'; 'Tim
> > Canale'
> > Subject: DRG - please answer the question
> >
> > I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition
> > of all 3
> > WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane
> > hit the
> > pentagon.
> >
> > Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these
> > questions without
> > drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
> > investigation.
> >
> > David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?
> >
> >
> >
>

1g.

Re: On the Destructiveness of the No-Planer Cult

Posted by: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com   bgiltner

Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:31 pm (PST)

Sean,

As I've said before, (and I know it makes me sound like a suck-up),
I appreciate your contributions as the owner and major contributer
to this list.

However, I want to respond taking issue with your words here.

1) The word cult seems to be way over the top. There are people of
all sorts and opinions about what the facts of 9/11 are. I think
you are reacting to Webfairy and Holmgren, and possibly Nico.
Perhaps you've found my contributions disgusting and poorly
educated. I admit I don't always understand the battles and
approaches that the above mentioned persons follow, but if there is
indeed cult-like activity going on, I think it's more likely
organized dis-info rather than religious-like devotion to a leader
or cause.

2) I think that the evidence that supports the "no-plane" or "no
jetliner" argument about 9/11 is very strong. Of course, it creates
a huge question mark about what happened to the planes and people
alleged to be on those planes. There are other implications, of
course, as well.

This political-research list may not be the place to explore
a "unified theory" that can explain the evidence and lead us all
further down the path to solve this crime. And I understand that
the attitudes taken against D. R. Griffin appear unseemly. However,
for myself I've found the postings here that concern 9/11 research
here are a very much needed contribution to what would otherwise be
a discussion without enough direct ties to the facts and inferences
from events of 9/11.

2.

Saddam ends hunger strike after missing one meal  (Reuters)

Posted by: "better_off_said" better_off_said@yahoo.com   better_off_said

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:02 am (PST)

(Apparently they were serving fishsticks for lunch again.)

Saddam ends hunger strike after missing one meal
Reuters | Fri Jun 23, 7:54 AM ET

Saddam Hussein ended a brief hunger strike after missing just one
meal in his U.S.-run prison, a U.S. military spokesman said Friday.

The former Iraqi leader had refused lunch Thursday in protest at the
killing of one of his lawyers by gunmen, but the spokesman said he
ate his evening meal.

Former Saddam aides being held in the same prison had refused to eat
three meals since Wednesday evening but ended their fast with the ex-
president.

"They all took their dinner meal," the spokesman told Reuters.

Saddam is on trial for crimes against humanity for his role in the
1982 killing of 148 Shi'ites in Dujail. His lead counsel, Khalil al-
Dulaimi, has blamed pro-government Shi'ite militias for the murder
of his deputy Khamis al-Obaidi Wednesday.

3.

Re: INFOWAR:  Ghost Troop Counterattacks Bush League Disinfo (attn:

Posted by: "The Webfairy" webfairy@thewebfairy.com   the_webfairy

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:02 am (PST)

Two votes.

better_off_said wrote:
>
> Me thinks Cap'n May is a Manchurian Candidate... no offense.
>
> --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:political-research%40yahoogroups.com>, Captain May
> <captainmay@...> wrote:
> >
> > Prologue to Publishers and Readers
> >
> > Dear Lt. Col. Fowkes, I seldom have an opportunity to enter into
> a debate with an officer of your rank, as most of them have avoided
> me as a black-sheep captain for coming out against Bush and his
> loser war so early, and so emphatically. I wrote several prediction
> pieces about Iraq, all "worst-case," and all of them have come true -
> - with interest. Candidly, I would much rather have been wrong
> about the "Quicksand War," and I love my brother and sister
> servicemembers at least as well as you who are part of the project
> to "Swift Boat" me -- who were willing to tell every lie necessary
> to get us into the war, have told every lie possible to keep us in
> the war, and are lying about the Bush intention to keep us in the
> war after the next attack (a follow-up to the first): "911-2B."
> >
> > The internet "infowar" community has come to respect my
> insights, proven repeatedly in matters of geostrategic analysis and
> prediction, and my publishers often request that if I have a
> spirited exchange with any apologists for Bush and the war I self-
> publish it via my own network, so that they can re-publish it (if
> they choose) in their own cyber-publications.
> >
> > Accordingly, I submit this to an interested American People, as
> a continuation of an inquiry into the Bush League in Houston (which
> we have identified as the most likely target of the 911-2B attack).
> Should anyone want to know the publication that brought you into the
> Ghost Troop focus (and therefore the Ghost Troop Report), they may
> refer to your inclusion in the Texas City Nuclear Inquest:
> http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Texas-City-Nuclear-Inquest/,
> <http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Texas-City-Nuclear-Inquest/,> in the
> article just below this one at the top of the list. In that article
> you try to insinuate negative statements into the "Swift Boat"
> attack now being conducted against me, like other honorable officers
> before me who dared to talk truth to power.
> >
> > There is a picture of me at the link, incidentally, which should
> be of interest to Bush Bullies everywhere, who never tire of telling
> me that they are going to "bitch slap" me or "kick (my) ass," or who
> simply make references to more capable men doing the same, as you
> referred to Colonel Stan Horton. Why is it you and your associates
> always fall back on intimidation tactics? It's the kind of approach
> that can backfire badly -- as your boss George W. Bush has
> discovered with the Quicksand War in the Middle East.
> >
> >
> > Thom Shanker (NY Times) vs. LTC Gordon (Bush League)
> >
> > GFowkes@... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/23/2006 10:09:15 P.M. Central Standard
> Time, fcastleman@... writes:
> > Captain Eric H. May, MI/PAO, USA While the use of the title
> Captain may be used in certain circumstances, such as in a former
> role as with veterans organizations, the use of the acronym USA is
> reserved for the Regular Army. The use of the term Captain in this
> case is along the line of "Captain Benny's" or "Colonel Sanders".
> There is no such branch as MI/PAO nor even PAO. Nor can one
> reactivate one's own commission.
> >
> > "Goliath"
> > [Captain May's reply]
> >
> > LTC Fowkes:
> >
> > In a matter of high treason, every officer is obliged to self-
> activate as a matter of conscience. In a self-mobilized state,
> every officer becomes Army -- at least if his background is Army (as
> mine is). My rank has been used an recognized in echelons above the
> reality of localized Bush Bullies, I assure you, in both civilian
> and military circles. Civilian and military VIP's aware of -- or
> involved in -- my investigations and revelations knew that I was on
> a valid mission of conscience. As a matter of fact, it was Army
> officers at Dept. Army Public Affairs who (unlike the Bush Bullies)
> had a decent review to the Constitution, and advised me to announce
> my status in the way I do.
> >
> > Here's an example of a top-end journalist, Thom Shanker (NY
> Times, Pentagon), who showed much more courtesy (and much more
> savvy) than Bush Leaguers:
> >
> > Thom Shanker <shanker@...> wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:35:47 -0500
> > To: Eric May <captainmay@...>
> > From: Thom Shanker <shanker@...>
> > Subject: Re: Dissident officer accuses White House of cover-up
> >
> > Captain May,
> >
> > In the interest of holiday understanding, I have to ask: After
> treating you with respect, as opposed to the hostile notes I know
> you have gotten from other members of the news media, why do you
> choose to insult me, as you did in the note you sent out? Such
> action is beneath a professional soldier such as you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Thom
> >
> > At 05:26 PM 12/23/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> > My name is Captain Eric H. May, and I am making the flat
> allegation that the Bush White House covered up the Battle of
> Baghdad with the Private Jessica scam. Please be so kind as to
> visit the site I brought on line two days ago:
> www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/
> >
> > If you find the evidence of interest, kindly contact me via this
> email. I am copying this letter to Thom Shanker, chief pentagon
> correspondent for the New York Times. Thom knows about the cover
> up, but is afraid to tell -- all the mainstream media are. You
> already knew you couldn't trust them, didn't you?
> >
> > With your permission, I'll include you in my daily column, If I
> May, an analysis of war news from a former intelligence and public
> affairs officer. If you don't want me to contact you again, kindly
> send a message.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Captain May
> >
> > Thom Shanker
> > Pentagon correspondent
> > The New York Times
> > 202/862-0323
> > [Back to LTC Fowkes...]
> >
> > As the top Pentagon correspondent in the USA, Shanker had, of
> course, pulled my files back in the summer of 2003, when we nearly
> busted open the Bush conspiracy -- before the assassinations of July
> 2003 began (most people only know about Dr. David Kelly in the UK,
> but there were otheres). He knew quite clearly that my commission
> had expired in 1998, but chose to honor me and my mission because he
> knew there was a cover-up, and he respected an officer willing
> to "pin his rank on" in a Constitutional crisis, risking death to
> defend his nation. He admired the fact that I had written the most
> scathing attack of a loser war printed in America -- two days after
> Amb. Joe Wilson attacked Bush in the NY Times:
> http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/pub/pub070803.pdf
> <http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/pub/pub070803.pdf>
> >
> > If you want to know all the history that has been happening
> while armchair soldiers gambled our money and children's lives on an
> illegal war and a rich-man's-son leader, just Google my name with
> Shankers -- or search you own name, as it has become part of record
> by dint of being written about by a widely-read writer like me. If
> you want to know about BOBCUP, just click BOBCUP -- we've made sure
> that the attempt to desecrate our comrades (and yours) wouldn't go
> unnoticed, and that the bully tactics used against their widows and
> orphans in Ft. Stewart, Georgia, won't go unpunished.
> >
> > Shanker, of course, was bluffing about the Battle of Baghdad
> Cover Up (BOBCUP), since he knew it happened (and covered it up) at
> about the same time that you knew it occurred (and covered it up).
> See what I mean about criminal conduct? BOBCUP was the first
> illegal act we investigated, and led to the others. I think you
> were aware of just how illegal things had gotten when you wrote me
> with much concern and some advice in Feb. 2004, when I had contacted
> you to appeal to your sense of honor and duty:
> >
> > From: GFowkes@...
> > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:58:17 EST
> > Subject: Re: URGENT REPORT FOR MEREDITH PERKINS (OF REP.
> RODRIGUEZ, US HOUSE) FROM CPT...
> > To: captainmay@...
> >
> > (T)here may be evil plots, black bag operations,et al ..., I
> recommend that you seek profesisonal (sic) help in order to protect
> your freedoms, rights, opinions, and personal safety. I did. And
> am alive because I did. Gordon S Fowkes
> >
> > Now, you can re-interpret that statement (part of Ghost Troop's
> filed Congressional report at www.ghosttroop.net/) when asked about
> it in the future -- and VIP's with whom I deal suggest that to be
> likely. It seems to me, though, that you were giving sound advice
> that I take cover while running for cover yourself! This was fine
> advice, as it showed the realities of the infowar!
> >
> > I wonder what changed, though, to make you the author of
> the "swift boat" quotations about me, signed with your first name,
> rank and retired status, but lacking a last name -- did you want to
> remain anonymous while you tried to find a way to attack an
> honorable officer? It seems so, doesn't it? I refer interested
> readers to yesterday's "LTC FOWKES" article --
> http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Texas-City-Nuclear-Inquest/
> <http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Texas-City-Nuclear-Inquest/> -- for
> your exact words.
> >
> >
> > Talking Truth to Power (article pending...)
> >
> > I expect to be writing an article about you and your fellow
> Houston disinformation operatives soon, as you are apparently the
> most active cell working in the US. Back when BOBCUP was a fresh
> crime, you were intimidating the kids at a University of Houston war
> discussion forum (200 folks) into understanding that the war would
> be won -- had already been won, as a matter of fact (so Bush said,
> ergo so you said). The reference to this is
> http://www.ghosttroop.net/gordeonfowkes.htm.
> <http://www.ghosttroop.net/gordeonfowkes.htm.> I would have left you
> out of things, had you not blindly jumped into the middle of them
> (more Bush League imitation?). I'll include you principle
> associates, whom you serve in attacking brother officers. I think
> the world is waiting for something like Bush Boyz -- Bully Tactics
> in Texas.
> >
> > Again, I wouldn't have written TO you if you hadn't written
> ABOUT me (with hopes of anonymity, apparently), but since you want
> to start a writing conversation, I'm quite willing, ready and able --
> that was my reputation back when folks called me one of the
> brightest officers in the 75th "Brainiac" Division. I think that,
> when all is said and done, there will be quite serious folks -- the
> American People -- asking why it is that so many officers did Bush's
> dirty work for him against the citizens and constitution. I think
> the same folks will want to know whether there weren't some officers
> who actually obeyed their oaths, and had a decent regard to honor.
> It is my hope that they shall continue to name me as one of these --
> perhaps the first one of these -- and that the Army that taught me
> not to betray my country will be proud.
> >
> > I look forward to reading the pending "Swift Boat" article in
> which you have collaborated to slander me, and will put it beside
> other proofs of official disfavor as proofs positive that I have
> done my duty in historic times. My international readers already
> have this view of me -- Pravda and Al-Jazeerah.info publish my
> essays, and my work in the matter of a possible Chicago 911 event
> topped the Irish 911 Truth Movement: http://www.911truth.ie/.
> <http://www.911truth.ie/.> (Do
> you think yesterday's news that Al-CIA-Duh is setting up
> another "Chicago 911" scenario will hurt my readership???)
> >
> >
> > The Last Word: Texas City Nuclear Inquest
> >
> > The inquest I'm running (and into which you have stepped)
> alleges treason in the Houston area, and adduces events of sabotage
> that are quite specific -- all of which Ghost Troop and I were able
> to predict because we could "read the tea leaves" of treason,
> having "learned the lessons of 911" (i.e., that the Bush League
> rules through mass murder and terror!)
> >
> > Although I don't think much of you at this point (so little
> regard do I have for backshooters and backstabbers), I would like to
> think that you wouldn't stoop to joining in on the plot, and do my
> last service to you as a former comrade by telling you emphatically
> to stay away from this illegal conspiracy.
> >
> > I've debated the issue of the Houston-area terror conspiracy
> (with evidence) in a widely published article:
> http://mujca.com/usmilitary.htm. <http://mujca.com/usmilitary.htm.> If
> you choose to read it you'll
> find that my charge of treason isn't new, isn't undocumented, and
> isn't going away. The officer to whom I addressed that email, LTC
> Madonna (USMC, Ret.) didn't try -- as you did -- to work behind my
> back, so he gets more respectful treatment. Candidly, it is
> distasteful to me when I have to denounce a brother officer, which
> distinguishes me from you and yours.
> >
> >
> > Captain Eric H. May, MI/PAO, USA
> > CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+
> > Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action
> >
> > PS: For those interested in knowing more about Ghost Troop --
> or joining it -- kindly refer to our main operational site at
> http://www.spiritone.com/~pazuu/pow-mia/GhostTroopCaptMay.htm.
> <http://www.spiritone.com/%7Epazuu/pow-mia/GhostTroopCaptMay.htm.>
> >
>
>

4a.

Re: Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says

Posted by: "LeaNder" l.l.hahn@web.de   l_l_hahn

Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:04 am (PST)

This is definitely one of the most interesting parts of recent US
history. But how again is the Curveball story related to the student
paper? I may be storing details wrongly - which shows I am just a
interested onlooker no expert in these matters, with additionally
limited concentration on these issues. In the case of curveball a US -
German services axis surfaces. But wasn't there a UK angle? And why?
Seems to lead straight towards an escape road: The German's couldn't be
trusted, since Schroeder used his anti-war posture as a big plus in
elections? But how did BND knowledge make it into a student paper? Two
more questions: Although Drumheller is retired now, still he must be
restricted [I can't believe he's free to utter all he wants once he is
retired] so what part of his story will be censored. Or am I supposed to
believe his book will not be read and censored before it hits the
market? Limited hangout, with a strategy in further smoke and mirrors
already in place? Am I mixing things up? -b
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR20060\
62401081.html
>
>
> In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to
argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations,
veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of
Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about
mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.
>
> Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector
suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took
his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole
paragraph.
>
> A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood
before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand
descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."
>
> The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.
>
> "We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was
the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I
turn on the television and there it was, again."
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net
>

4b.

Re: Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:06 am (PST)

It seems to me that the main point of this story is that NEOCONSERVATIVES, with close ties to ISRAEL, and influenced by the mindset and values of LEO STRAUSS and MOSSAD, kept deliberately inserting LIES into the intel stream in the Bush administration, over the objections of the best minds in the intel community, in order to trigger WORLD WAR IV and to lay the groundwork for the American nuking of all of Israel's enemies in a secular version of ARMAGEDDON.

The caps are intended to help induce mental focus. The German angle on all of this is relatively insignificant. What is significant is how Curveball was used as part of the neocon master plan, and how the neocons ran roughshod over the CIA, an organization which they despise and have now substantially destroyed. The neocons have always seen the CIA as an obstacle to the complete takeover of the American government by the Israeli government, and have sought to crush and dismantle it. They feel the same way about the American military establishment -- in their minds it is the enemy and must be beaten into submission. The phrase "civilian leadership" when discussing the nefarious goings on at the Pentagon in the nightmarish Bush 43 administration is always a euphemism in the American mainstream media for NEOCONSERVATIVES.

The Bush administration, under the control of the neocons, has deliberately told so many outrageous lies at this point that it is impossible to keep track of them all without a large and sophisticated database. It has been one lie after another, with no end to the lies in sight. When they do this, the neocons imagine that they are being extraordinarily clever. They gloat about their lies, savor the brilliance of their deceit.

LeaNder <l.l.hahn@web.de> wrote:
This is definitely one of the most interesting parts of recent US
history. But how again is the Curveball story related to the student
paper? I may be storing details wrongly - which shows I am just a
interested onlooker no expert in these matters, with additionally
limited concentration on these issues. In the case of curveball a US -
German services axis surfaces. But wasn't there a UK angle? And why?
Seems to lead straight towards an escape road: The German's couldn't be
trusted, since Schroeder used his anti-war posture as a big plus in
elections? But how did BND knowledge make it into a student paper? Two
more questions: Although Drumheller is retired now, still he must be
restricted [I can't believe he's free to utter all he wants once he is
retired] so what part of his story will be censored. Or am I supposed to
believe his book will not be read and censored before it hits the
market? Limited hangout, with a strategy in further smoke and mirrors
already in place? Am I mixing things up? -b
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR20060\
62401081.html
>
>
> In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to
argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations,
veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of
Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about
mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.
>
> Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector
suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took
his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole
paragraph.
>
> A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood
before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand
descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."
>
> The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.
>
> "We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was
the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I
turn on the television and there it was, again."
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net
>

4c.

Re: Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says

Posted by: "LeaNder" l.l.hahn@web.de   l_l_hahn

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:53 am (PST)

Hmmm, I am highly irritated that my ***naive*** response to something
at the center of my interest: the curveball story, which I sent nicely
paragrahed, for the reader's eye out there, is now turned into a less
easily readable big letter block.

May I try again?

-b
>
This is definitely one of the most interesting parts of recent US
history. But how again is the Curveball story related to the student
paper? I may be storing details wrongly - which shows I am just a
interested onlooker no expert in these matters, with admittedly
limited concentration on these issues.

- In the case of curveball a US - German services axis surfaces.

- But wasn't there a UK angle? And why?

Seems to lead straight towards an escape road: The German's couldn't
be trusted, since Schroeder used his anti-war posture as a big plus in
elections? But how did BND knowledge make it into a student paper?

Two more questions: Although Drumheller is retired now, still he must
be restricted [I can't believe he's free to utter all he wants once he
is retired] so what part of his story will be censored. Or am I
supposed to believe his book will not be read and censored before it
hits the market? Limited hangout (thank you Bob, for awareness of the
the necessary terminology), with a strategy in further smoke and
mirrors already in place?

Am I mixing things up?

-b
>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR20060\
> 62401081.html>
> >
> > In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to
> argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations,
> veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of
> Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about
> mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.
> >
> > Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector
> suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took
> his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole
> paragraph.
> >
> > A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood
> before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand
> descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."
> >
> > The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.
> >
> > "We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was
> the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I
> turn on the television and there it was, again."
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net
> >
>

5.

Robert Dreyfuss: Sunni -- or Sunny? (The Sears Tower Plot)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:06 am (PST)


<http://robertdreyfuss.com/blog/2006/06/sunni_or_sunny.html>

Comment:

Hilarious! The neocon GWOT achieves new heights of absurdity.

Article:

Take a look at this piece from Linda Milazzo, who wrote an op-ed on the Miami terrorism plot. (That would be the nonexistent plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.) The funny part is the exchange between Wolf Blitzer and the sister of one of those accused in the plot. Here it is:

Should anyone in America incomprehensibly require further convincing of how feckless the United States Government is and how goofy and uninformed cable news is, here's an excerpt from an exchange earlier today between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Marlene Phanor, sister of Stanley Grant Phanor, aka "Brother Sunni," one of Florida's supposed seven "home-grown terrorists":

Blitzer: Is your brother a Muslim?
Ms. Phanor: No, sir. He's a Catholic.

Blitzer: Does he go to church?

Phanor: Yes, he goes to church. He's a Catholic. We enter St. Mary's Catholic Church on 75th and Second Avenue.

Blitzer: Is he very political, your brother? Does he have strong political views?

Ms. Phanor: No. I can't really say that.

A few inconsequential questions later, Blitzer goes on to ask:

Blitzer: Why does the government say he [your brother Stanley Phanor] is also known as "Brother Sunni"?

Ms. Phanor: They all call themselves 'brothers'. Why, I don't know... but the whole little group calls themselves 'brother'.

Blitzer: Did you ever hear your brother being called "Sunni"?

Ms. Phanor: Yeah. That's his nickname. It's not "Sunni". It's "Sunny"... like it's a sunny day. Yeah, that's his name.

Blitzer: So the confusion is he was called Sunny and not Sunni... because as you know Sunni is one of the religious groups in Islam.

Ms. Phanor: No, I didn't know that but now that I know... no it's not for that. That's his nickname and it's spelled S-u-n-n-y... as in sunny day. That's his nickname ever since birth....

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

6.

Murdoch, Razl Dazl, Holmgren, Australia, Israel, etc.

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:18 am (PST)

Murdoch, Razl Dazl, Holmgren, Australia, Israel, etc.

Some patterns which don't necessarily mean anything, but which might mean something:

Australia
Gerard Holmgren
iinet.net.au
neocon agenda
personal attacks
pro-Israel militancy
Razl Dazl
Rupert Murdoch
verbal abuse

Rupert Murdoch is the single most destructive human being in American politics and culture -- he has debased and degraded every aspect of American life. Murdoch is a pro-Israel fanatic, with close ties to Likud. He is a main sponsor of neoconservatism and neoconservatives. He promotes a high level of verbal violence and personal attacks in politics. His home base is Australia (although I believe he now lives in Manhattan).

Gerard Holmgren and Razl Dazl are the two most verbally violent and destructive personalities I've encountered on the net. They both log in from the Australian ISP iinet.net.au. Razl Dazl is a pro-Israel fanatic and promoter of neoconservative propaganda, and regularly smears any disagreements with Israel and the neocons as anti-Semitic. Holmgren, as I recall, complained about the presence of "anti-Semitism" among 9/11 skeptics, who pointed out an Israeli and neoconservative dimension to the political exploitation of 9/11.

Is all of this coincidental? Probably. But there are a few interesting patterns here.

Is Gerard Holmgren an Australian-based Israeli op, as Rupert Murdoch and Razl Dazl quite clearly are? Is his mission to torpedo the most legitimate and influential 9/11 research? Maybe.

And which parties have enabled and supported Razl Dazl and Gerard Holmgren?

7.

FBI-CIA Use Western Union As Deadly Weapon

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:01 pm (PST)


<http://cryptome.org/fbi-cia-wu.htm>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

8.

In Defense of Measheimer-Walt

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:07 pm (PST)


<http://ramlabile.blogspot.com/2006/06/in-open-defense-of-measheimer-walt.html>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

9.

COINTELPRO-Style Ops in the 9/11 Research Community

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:31 pm (PST)

COINTELPRO-Style Ops in the 9/11 Research Community

COINTELPRO-style ops are designed to discredit and destroy the political opposition, using a variety of dirty tricks.

One method is to attach views and positions to the opposition that are extremist, violent or simply crazy.

Another method is to encourage internecine conflicts and bitter feuding within the opposition -- to manipulate the opposition into destroying itself.

COINTELPRO-style ops will typically attack the most influential and effective voices in the opposition under the guise of speaking for the true opposition.

With these criteria in mind, Gerard Holmgren, and everyone associated with Holmgren, appear to be part of a COINTELPRO-style op. There is no proof that this is so, but there is definitely the appearance.

10.

Greenland Ice Caps Melting at Staggering Pace

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:43 pm (PST)


<http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060625_greenland_ice_caps/>

According to the L.A. Times: "The massive glaciers are deteriorating twice as fast as they were five years ago. If the ice thaws entirely, sea level would rise 21 feet." Some experts think the melting is occurring in ways that computer models had not predicted.

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

11.

MondoWeiss: The Israel Lobby and Joe Lieberman

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:50 pm (PST)

<http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2006/06/the-israel-lobby-and-joe-lieberman.html>

Afraid of the leftwing insurgency against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Party, the pro-Israel lobby is rallying to the Senator's side, so reports the Forward.

This is further evidence for my political hobbyhorse: That the Israel lobby is one of the strongest constituencies behind the disastrous Iraq war and that the conflict between liberal pro-Israel hawks and populist antiwar left, is dividing the Democratic party, even if David Brooks and other MSM commentators are afraid to talk about it. Though they'll talk about Christian evangelists -- people they don't know -- till the cows come home.

This underlines the political significance of Walt & Mearsheimer: they may be intellectuals, but their work has had enormous political resonance. High noon.

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

12.

[Fwd: [ Re:  Reading DRG  "In Context"]

Posted by: "The Webfairy" webfairy@thewebfairy.com   the_webfairy

Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:55 pm (PST)

Discussing David Ray Griffin, 911 "Truth" Icon

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Reading DRG "In Context"
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:28:45 -0000
From: Lynn Ertell <lynnertell@comcast.net>
Reply-To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com

After all, he does not shrink from adavncing his own ideological agenda.

Principally, the replacement of traditional forms of Constitutional
authority by new "regional" and "local" structures, exemplified by the
beneficient vision of the kind generous folks at TRANET,
the Transnational Network for Appropriate/Alternative Technologies

Here is a brief sample to whet your appetite:
"Governance for the coming age cannot be based on the narrow concepts
of government through bureaucratic nation-state hierarchies. The
current transformation is wholistic and multidimensional. In keeping
with this transformation, government at all levels should be wholistic
and multidimensional. We must recognize the many forces of human
governance and construct a world order which reflects, promotes, and
takes advantage of the emerging spiritual and ethical affirmation of
human rights and human dignity. Future government can be pictured as
multidimensional networks which provides each individual with many
optional paths through which he can provide for his own well being and
can participate in controlling human affairs."
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC03/Ellis.htm(

Never forget the larger Context and the other players in context.......
"In response to this challenge and vision, preparations are now
underway for the first North American Bioregional Congress (N.A.B.C.)
to be held in the spring of 1984 in the Ozark bioregion. The prime
sponsoring organizations are the Ozark Area Community Congress and the
Kansas Area Watershed Council. Co-sponsors include:
Consumer Cooperative Alliance - CCA (Washington, DC)
The International Permaculture Seed Yearbook (Orange, MA)
TRANET - Transnational Network for
Appropriate/Alternative Technologies (Rangeley, ME)
RAIN - Journal of Appropriate Technology (Portland, OR)
Planet Drum Foundation (San Francisco, CA)
Riverdale Center for Religious Research (Bronx,NY)
E.F. Schumacher Society (Great Barrington, MA)
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC03/Haenke.htm
--------

Wait.
Did I see the word "permaculture" ?
Isn't that the key marketing meme of Mark Rabidnitwitz ?
And again ... be sure to keep it all 'in context":
http://www.context.org/GUIDES/govrnanc.htm
To be fair, we have to evaluate DRG ... In Context...
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC38/Haley.htm

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn Ertell"
<lynnertell@...> wrote:
>
> re: Sacred Missions - the sacred mission of DRG
>
> To be fair, it has to be placed in its institutional and cultural
Context.
>
> Welcome to ConflictResolutionland
> http://www.context.org/GUIDES/pubsafe.htm
> (probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of Angermanagement country)
> which speedily links here to (wheww !) ... "respectable" academia:
> http://www.fresno.edu/pacs/docs/
>
> complete with a whole new "justice" sytem
> http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC38/TOC38.htm
> which is all about "healing"..
> http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC38/SvGldr2.htm
> from this one here:
> http://www.yesmagazine.org/article_list.asp?Type=1&ID=1
> all about sustainable entrepeneurs
> http://www.yesmagazine.org/svgblog/
> and reduced consumption as the ultimate solution
> http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=877
>
> also, parenthetically, arrives at this practical approach to 2nd
> Amendment issues
> http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC38/Alexandr.htm
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

13.

U.S. Due to Hit 300 Million This Fall

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:10 pm (PST)

<http://prorev.com/2006/06/us-due-to-hit-300-million-in-fall.htm>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

14.

Gerard Holmgren Appears to Be Israeli COINTELPRO Op

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:59 pm (PST)

Gerard Holmgren just ratcheted up the suspicions in my mind about what he is up to: he nastily and sneakily substituted the word "Jews" for "neoconservatives" and "pro-Israel militants." I never used the term "Jews" in my posts on this subject, and would never use the term "Jews" in a pejorative way.

This intellectually dishonest and dirty trick that Holmgren just used is a standard tactic of pro-Israel militants, which Holmgren gives every sign of being. It's a variation on the anti-Semitism smear.

The Israel lobby has been in the forefront of trying to block an honest investigation into 9/11. We now understand why Holmgren has expended so much energy in cluttering up the discussion about 9/11 with diversionary trash.

I don't waste time debating the precise details of what happened on 9/11 -- the evidence is too thin to know for sure what happened. And in any case, I really couldn't care less about the details of the HOW of the op. What concerns me is building up enough political pressure on the American mainstream to force into the open the WHO and the WHY of 9/11. Once that is done, we can learn about the operational procedures that were used, straight from the horse's mouth.

Gerard Holmgren and his associates are doing everything in their power to destroy the credibility of 9/11 skeptics in the minds of the general public, and to incite self-destructive internecine warfare among various 9/11 truth-seeking groups. The stink of pure COINTELPRO is all over his posts. Holmgren and his associates should be ostracized by anyone who really cares about getting to the bottom of 9/11.

I have given Rosalee Grable and others who share her views every opportunity in my group, political-research, to explain the no-plane theory on 9/11 -- I am open to every theory that depends on evidence and rational argument. But despite this generosity from me and others, the no-planers consistently adopt a stance of vicious fanaticism with regard to anyone who won't embrace their theory and shower skeptics with mindless verbal abuse. In their absolutism, they remind me much of Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush and other poorly educated zealots and totalitarians.


The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com> wrote:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [political-research] [Fwd: DRG indicts himself
with his silence]]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:42:13 +1000
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
To: 'The Webfairy' <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>

A fascinating rant below from McBride. Most of it is not worth addressing,
although I do note with amusement that McBride finds deep suspicion in the
fact that two people he doesn't like both use iinet.

Since it's the fourth biggest ISP in Australia, this is indeed proof of some
kind of Jewish plot with me as chief villain.

Where did all of this start ?

I asked Griffin the following question.

[[I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition of all
3 WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane hit the
pentagon.

Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these questions without
drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
investigation.

David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?]]

And he refused to answer. If Sean has an alternative explanation of why
Griffin should have any conceivable reason to refuse to answer the question,
then he has yet to provide it.

Since Griffin is incapable of answering a simple question, lets try Sean.

Sean,

Do you unequivocally endorse

a)that all 3 WTC buildings were demolished ?

b)that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane hit the pentagon ?

An answer which doesn't include the following words

"Jews"
"Murdoch"
"Truth movement"

More than several thousand times each would be appreciated.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Webfairy [mailto:webfairy@thewebfairy.com]
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2006 2:56 AM
To: Gerard Holmgren
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [political-research] [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his
silence]]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [political-research] [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his
silence]
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sean McBride <smcbride2@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: political-research@yahoogroups.com
To: political-research@yahoogroups.com

Gerard Holmgren strikes me as the very worst of the worst in the 9/11
truth movement -- an obnoxious and destructive zealot who absurdly
manages to work up ferocious certitude about matters that are purely
speculative. David Ray Griffin is vastly his superior in every
conceivable department. Holmgren is the best example I've seen to date
of how a COINTELPRO op is supposed to work in wreaking havoc among a
political movement. This is how it is done -- swing an axe against
everyone who is most effective in the movement and reduce it to vicious
internal factionalism and chaos.

Is Holmgren Australian, by the way? So far I haven't seen in his posts
the least glimmer of understanding or even consciousness of what is
going on in American politics or the world in general. He knows none of
the key players in American politics or their writings and background.
Apparently he has studied very little about any serious subject, not to
mention the political and intellectual history of the United States and
neoconservatism.

Whether or not real planes were used on 9/11 is entirely peripheral to
the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did they
do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the endgame they
have in mind? *HOW* they did it it is relatively a minor detail, and a
question that be answered only if the conspirators can be brought to
justice and their testimony brought to light. The only conceivable way
that can happen is if the minds of enough influential people in the
political mainstream -- NOT at the political fringe -- can be focused on
this subject. Holmgren and people like him are getting in the way of
achieving that objective. They should simply shut up.

You know, one of the main purposes of acquiring an education in the
liberal arts -- in literature, history and related subjects -- is to
learn that the world is highly complex and diverse, and that it is the
height of insanity to demand complete agreement from others on whatever
it is one believes about the world.

Educated minds see all of world history as an endless and evolutionary
dialectic among diverse views and theories about the world -- the circle
can never be closed. Uneducated minds are highly susceptible to
totalitarian and fundamentalist movements of all kinds. Utopia now.

*/The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>/* wrote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au
<mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>>

Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are met
with
terrified silence.

Why ?

Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs
which they
hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply
presenting
what they believe to be the truth.

Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC
buildings were
demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of
simply
restating this view?

Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore or
even
attack/ridicule these views ?

Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such views
- as "a
great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"

Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up a
copy"
of the book in public ?

Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit
for the
work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the
comments of
those who describe him as a "researcher"?

I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this constant
chant,
but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's done
again here.

Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less genuine and
simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult
master, or
whether he knew what he doing.

His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm that he
knows exactly what he is doing.

The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any number of
contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as they are
good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian
should be at
the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most how to
construct a cult/religion which will become popular.

The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic
foundation
of this cult. Double think.

I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in direct
contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the other.

That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of "truth
movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not hitting the
pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
simultaneously.

Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is
determined by
what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no
purpose
other than being good for itself.

Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly
believe a
word of what'a in his book ?

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"

"3."

And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"

"Then its four."

"And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"

"Then its both 3 and 4."

"Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"

"Because it's the truth."

And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"

"Because its good for the truth movement."

By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was
asking him to
violate the most basic rule of his cult.

Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by
answering
the question.

I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no
hesitation
in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au
<mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>]
Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones';
'FORD@NAU.EDU <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>';
'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds'; 'rick
siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt'; 'PlaguePuppy';
'palast@gregpalast.com <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>'; 'marcus
icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
'jr@rense.com <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy
Walter';
'chossudovsky@videotron.ca <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>';
'BarHonegger@aol.com <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>'; 'angiesept11';
'amysasser@gmail.com <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>'; 'alex
Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
<mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>';
'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net
<mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>'; 'tarpley@radix.net
<mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>'; 'Tim
Canale'
Subject: DRG - please answer the question

I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition
of all 3
WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane
hit the
pentagon.

Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these questions
without
drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
investigation.

David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?

15.

On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:11 pm (PST)

On the Low Educational Level of the 9/11 No-Planers

I get the strong impression that few or none of the no-planer cultists have advanced degrees from leading universities -- am I correct? Please correct me if I am wrong.

People with advanced degrees from leading universities usually learn how to respect, encourage and enjoy a wide diversity of opinions, theories and research approaches on all topics. They don't demand intellectual submission from their adversaries -- what matters is the dialectical process of increasing one's knowledge and understanding of a topic.

Poorly educated people are highly susceptible to cults, absolute doctrines, totalitarian modes of thinking, the demonization of those who disagree with them and reams of verbal abuse as a method of "argumentation."

So -- why does the discourse of the no-planers fall so far below that of educated minds like David Ray Griffin and Steven Jones? In fact, I have seen the charge hurled by some no-planers that academic achievement in the real world is a certain sign nefarious activity and associations. The more intellectual effort you expend, the more evil you are. Supposedly, in ignorance and intellectual laziness lie virtue. This is a convenient world view for slackers.

16.

Re: [apfn-1] Re: [ctrl] Gerard Holmgren Appears To Be an Israeli COI

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:28 pm (PST)

Frankly, you now sound seriously crazy to me. You are not even making the pretense of an effort to reply the content of my posts -- signs of a total cognitive breakdown. You sound like a cult robot -- way off the deep end. Perhaps you really are a mind control victim.


The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com> wrote:
When all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, eh?

Funny how exposing the new age globalist agenda and double talking
planehugging of supposed "truth hero" Griffin, who gets to appear on
CSpan for selective exposure/coverup starts the namecalling machine.

We have plenty of evidence. You are falling into baldface lying now.
WE have crime scene video split into 60th of a second increments in
which there is no plane.
Instead secret project UAV craft are pictured.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/uav

Letting the Media/Gov/Defense Contractor conglomerate get away with
murder while helping the coverup exposes your CFR biases.

Sean McBride wrote:
> Gerard Holmgren just ratcheted up the suspicions in my mind about what
> he is up to: he nastily and sneakily substituted the word "Jews" for
> "neoconservatives" and "pro-Israel militants." I never used the term
> "Jews" in my posts on this subject, and would never use the term
> "Jews" in a pejorative way.
>
> This intellectually dishonest and dirty trick that Holmgren just used
> is a standard tactic of pro-Israel militants, which Holmgren gives
> every sign of being. It's a variation on the anti-Semitism smear.
>
> The Israel lobby has been in the forefront of trying to block an
> honest investigation into 9/11. We now understand why Holmgren has
> expended so much energy in cluttering up the discussion about 9/11
> with diversionary trash.
>
> I don't waste time debating the precise details of what happened on
> 9/11 -- the evidence is too thin to know for sure what happened. And
> in any case, I really couldn't care less about the details of the HOW
> of the op. What concerns me is building up enough political pressure
> on the American mainstream to force into the open the WHO and the WHY
> of 9/11. Once that is done, we can learn about the operational
> procedures that were used, straight from the horse's mouth.
>
> Gerard Holmgren and his associates are doing everything in their power
> to destroy the credibility of 9/11 skeptics in the minds of the
> general public, and to incite self-destructive internecine warfare
> among various 9/11 truth-seeking groups. The stink of pure COINTELPRO
> is all over his posts. Holmgren and his associates should be
> ostracized by anyone who really cares about getting to the bottom of 9/11.
>
> I have given Rosalee Grable and others who share her views every
> opportunity in my group, political-research, to explain the no-plane
> theory on 9/11 -- I am open to every theory that depends on evidence
> and rational argument. But despite this generosity from me and
> others, the no-planers consistently adopt a stance of vicious
> fanaticism with regard to anyone who won't embrace their theory and
> shower skeptics with mindless verbal abuse. In their absolutism, they
> remind me much of Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush and other poorly
> educated zealots and totalitarians.
>
>
> */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>/* wrote:
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [political-research] [Fwd: DRG indicts himself
> with his silence]]
> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:42:13 +1000
> From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>>
> To: 'The Webfairy' <webfairy@thewebfairy.com
> <mailto:webfairy%40thewebfairy.com>>
>
> A fascinating rant below from McBride. Most of it is not worth
> addressing,
> although I do note with amusement that McBride finds deep
> suspicion in the
> fact that two people he doesn't like both use iinet.
>
> Since it's the fourth biggest ISP in Australia, this is indeed
> proof of some
> kind of Jewish plot with me as chief villain.
>
> Where did all of this start ?
>
> I asked Griffin the following question.
>
> [[I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of
> demolition of all
> 3 WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of
> plane hit the
> pentagon.
>
> Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these
> questions without
> drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
> investigation.
>
> David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?]]
>
> And he refused to answer. If Sean has an alternative explanation
> of why
> Griffin should have any conceivable reason to refuse to answer the
> question,
> then he has yet to provide it.
>
> Since Griffin is incapable of answering a simple question, lets
> try Sean.
>
> Sean,
>
> Do you unequivocally endorse
>
> a)that all 3 WTC buildings were demolished ?
>
> b)that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane hit the pentagon ?
>
> An answer which doesn't include the following words
>
> "Jews"
> "Murdoch"
> "Truth movement"
>
> More than several thousand times each would be appreciated.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Webfairy [mailto:webfairy@thewebfairy.com
> <mailto:webfairy%40thewebfairy.com>]
> Sent: Monday, 26 June 2006 2:56 AM
> To: Gerard Holmgren
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [political-research] [Fwd: DRG indicts himself
> with his
> silence]]
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [political-research] [Fwd: DRG indicts himself with his
> silence]
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sean McBride <smcbride2@yahoo.com
> <mailto:smcbride2%40yahoo.com>>
> Reply-To: political-research@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:political-research%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: political-research@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:political-research%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Gerard Holmgren strikes me as the very worst of the worst in the 9/11
> truth movement -- an obnoxious and destructive zealot who absurdly
> manages to work up ferocious certitude about matters that are purely
> speculative. David Ray Griffin is vastly his superior in every
> conceivable department. Holmgren is the best example I've seen to
> date
> of how a COINTELPRO op is supposed to work in wreaking havoc among a
> political movement. This is how it is done -- swing an axe against
> everyone who is most effective in the movement and reduce it to
> vicious
> internal factionalism and chaos.
>
> Is Holmgren Australian, by the way? So far I haven't seen in his
> posts
> the least glimmer of understanding or even consciousness of what is
> going on in American politics or the world in general. He knows
> none of
> the key players in American politics or their writings and
> background.
> Apparently he has studied very little about any serious subject,
> not to
> mention the political and intellectual history of the United
> States and
> neoconservatism.
>
> Whether or not real planes were used on 9/11 is entirely
> peripheral to
> the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did
> they
> do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the endgame they
> have in mind? *HOW* they did it it is relatively a minor detail,
> and a
> question that be answered only if the conspirators can be brought to
> justice and their testimony brought to light. The only conceivable
> way
> that can happen is if the minds of enough influential people in the
> political mainstream -- NOT at the political fringe -- can be
> focused on
> this subject. Holmgren and people like him are getting in the way of
> achieving that objective. They should simply shut up.
>
> You know, one of the main purposes of acquiring an education in the
> liberal arts -- in literature, history and related subjects -- is to
> learn that the world is highly complex and diverse, and that it is
> the
> height of insanity to demand complete agreement from others on
> whatever
> it is one believes about the world.
>
> Educated minds see all of world history as an endless and
> evolutionary
> dialectic among diverse views and theories about the world -- the
> circle
> can never be closed. Uneducated minds are highly susceptible to
> totalitarian and fundamentalist movements of all kinds. Utopia now.
>
> */The Webfairy <webfairy@thewebfairy.com
> <mailto:webfairy%40thewebfairy.com>>/* wrote:
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: DRG indicts himself with his silence
> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:05:02 +1000
> From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>>
>
> Two simple requests for a simple answer to a simple question are met
> with
> terrified silence.
>
> Why ?
>
> Who in the world would be afraid of simply clarifying the beliefs
> which they
> hold ? only someone who was playing a game, rather than simply
> presenting
> what they believe to be the truth.
>
> Griffin's book and video apparently tells us that all 3 WTC
> buildings were
> demolished and no big plane hit the pentagon. Why then the fear of
> simply
> restating this view?
>
> Why does he hang around almost exclusively with people who ignore or
> even
> attack/ridicule these views ?
>
> Why does he describe Mike Ruppert - a constant critic of such views
> - as "a
> great hero of the 9/11 truth movement ?"
>
> Why was (we are told) Kyle Hence- who doesn't accept any of those
> propositions- given the theatre job of being "the first to hold up a
> copy"
> of the book in public ?
>
> Although Griffin has not to my knowledge, directly claimed credit
> for the
> work of others, he does nothing to disassociate himself from the
> comments of
> those who describe him as a "researcher"?
>
> I asked him once before to make a statement correcting this constant
> chant,
> but he took the lift to the top of the ivory tower, just like he's
> done
> again here.
>
> Initially, it was unclear whether Griffin was more or less genuine and
> simply being used by manipulative organizers as an unwitting cult
> master, or
> whether he knew what he doing.
>
> His refusal to reply to this simple question appears to confirm
> that he
> knows exactly what he is doing.
>
> The loonyland world of "911 truth" is a double think cult. Any
> number of
> contradictory beliefs are possible at the same time, as long as
> they are
> good for the "movement". Isn't it interesting that a theologian
> should be at
> the centre of it ? A theologian would understand better than most
> how to
> construct a cult/religion which will become popular.
>
> The simple question which I asked Griffin violates the most basic
> foundation
> of this cult. Double think.
>
> I asked Griffin a question where the two possible answers were in
> direct
> contradiction to each other, so that he had to specify one or the
> other.
>
> That's why he didn't answer. Because in the double think cult of
> "truth
> movement" we can have both AA77 hitting the pentagon and not
> hitting the
> pentagon. Both can be true. Either at different times, or even
> simultaneously.
>
> Which ever version(s) are endorsed at any particular time is
> determined by
> what is good for the "movement" , and the "movement" exists for no
> purpose
> other than being good for itself.
>
> Why are Griffin's most enthusiastic supporters, people who hardly
> believe a
> word of what'a in his book ?
>
> "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston ?"
>
> "3."
>
> And if its good for the truth movement for it to be 4 ?"
>
> "Then its four."
>
> "And if its good for the movement for it to be both 3 and 4 ?"
>
> "Then its both 3 and 4."
>
> "Why is it both 3 and 4, Winston ?"
>
> "Because it's the truth."
>
> And how do you know its the truth, Winston ?"
>
> "Because its good for the truth movement."
>
> By asking Griffin to commit himself to one or the other, I was
> asking him to
> violate the most basic rule of his cult.
>
> Griffin can of course prove that I'm talking rubbish, simply by
> answering
> the question.
>
> I'll be very happy to be proven a fool on this, and will have no
> hesitation
> in retracting the entire accusation - once he answers the question.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Holmgren [mailto:holmgren@iinet.net.au
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>
> <mailto:holmgren%40iinet.net.au>]
> Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 8:52 AM
> To: 'The Webfairy'; 'David Griffin'
> Cc: 'Kyle F Hence'; 'malaprop'; 'fonebone'; 'Steven Jones';
> 'FORD@NAU.EDU <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU> <mailto:%27FORD%40NAU.EDU>';
> 'gabbard'; 'carol Brouillet'; 'cathy garger'; 'morgan reynolds'; 'rick
> siegal'; 'dylan avery'; 'James feltzer'; 'nico Haupt'; 'PlaguePuppy';
> 'palast@gregpalast.com <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>
> <mailto:%27palast%40gregpalast.com>'; 'marcus
> icke'; 'Lenny Bloom'; 'Killtown';
> 'jr@rense.com <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>
> <mailto:%27jr%40rense.com>'; 'John Kaminski'; 'Jimmy
> Walter';
> 'chossudovsky@videotron.ca <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>
> <mailto:%27chossudovsky%40videotron.ca>';
> 'BarHonegger@aol.com <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>
> <mailto:%27BarHonegger%40aol.com>'; 'angiesept11';
> 'amysasser@gmail.com <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:%27amysasser%40gmail.com>'; 'alex
> Jones'; '911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
> <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>
> <mailto:%27911truthalliance%40lists.riseup.net>';
> 'Scott Loughrey'; 'SkyWriter@starpower.net
> <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>
> <mailto:%27SkyWriter%40starpower.net>'; 'tarpley@radix.net
> <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>
> <mailto:%27tarpley%40radix.net>'; 'Tim
> Canale'
> Subject: DRG - please answer the question
>
> I have attributed to Griffin unequivocal endorsement of demolition
> of all 3
> WTC buildings and that neither AA77 nor any similar kind of plane
> hit the
> pentagon.
>
> Hence has attributed to Griffin mere suspicion about these questions
> without
> drawing definite conclusions, and the desire for more official
> investigation.
>
> David, which one of us has misrepresented you ?
>

17.

On the Evidential Value of Digital Photos, Video and Audio

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com   smcbride2

Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:47 pm (PST)

On the Evidential Value of Digital Photos, Video and Audio

I have given little credence to photographic, video and audio evidence for well over a decade -- that is the time frame in which I have understood how easy it is to manipulate such evidence any which way one pleases. Amateurs can easily do it now, and intel professionals have been able to do it with the greatest of ease for several decades. This kind of evidence is so weak that I barely give it any attention at all.

Anyone who tries to build a dogmatic cult on such evidence is truly 100% insane. It is simply pathetic. The best way to deal with such unfortunates is to ignore them -- no amount of facts and reasoning is going to get through their mental world.
What will break the 9/11 case open is first-person testimony from two or more insiders, backed with substantial documentation. Poring over every pixel of photos and video is a waste of time.

Either the good guys inside the government are going to do the right thing, or they are not. The course of events is pretty much out of our hands. One hopes that keeping all the key questions about 9/11 alive on the Internet might help, but it might not be enough.

We Made Changes

Your Yahoo! Groups email is all new.

Learn More

SPONSORED LINKS
Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss