Will we win 911 info war? Reynolds--YES

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:40 pm

"They hear that and think, gee wiz, maybe it is true if respected rightwingers are pointing the finger at Bush." That was my initial inclination, on hearing Karl Schwartz go into rhetorical high gear on the crimes of George W. Bush. I'm like a lot of folks, I welcome all the allies I can get. Defectors, all the better...all "defector" really means in this instance is "people who have changed their minds to put principles ahead of partisanship and cult loyalty." But I don't like Trojan Horses, and I stay vigilant about that. Counterintelligence sense is vital.

by **NewKid** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:45 pm

We certainly know to be suspicious of Clark as well as all the ex-army, CIA and spook types who appear in the left wing circuit to tell us the 'real truth', and so it does make a sort of sense to start using people with no obvious military intelligence connections as your moles.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:48 pm

slim, just because I think that introducing numerological speculations is ludicrous in as far as building the foundation of a conspiracy case, that doesn't make me a disinformationist. Paid or otherwise. It means that I disagree with your methods of building a case, as found on other recent threads around here. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 10:07 pm

by **NewKid** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:51 pm

Ted Gunderson would be the closest thing to answering my earlier question I guess, being former SAC in charge of LA and the Olympics of 84 security and all. But his model is noticeably more flamboyant and over the top than anything we've seen out of Reynolds or Schwartz. Plus the subject matter Gunderson deals with -- pedophiles, sex rings, mind control -- sounds so ludicrous to most people that they would never entertain that in a million years. 9-11 being an inside job is something most people probably have entertained even if they never speak of it publicly.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:58 pm

"We certainly know to be suspicious of Clark as well as all the ex-army, CIA and spook types who appear in the left wing circuit to tell us the 'real truth', and so it does make a sort of sense to start using people with no obvious military intelligence connections as your moles." I think that it's important to be suspicious of everyone, and anyone with those backgrounds bears an added burden. But to me, simple existence of a military, intelligence, or law enforcement record doesn't cause the alarm bells to go off. It has much more to do with the plausibility and verifiability of the content of a given claim- which, it must be stressed once again, needs to be considered independently of any flights of oratory in condemnation of the villainy of the villans, by the purveyor of the claim. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 10:21 pm

by **NewKid** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But to me, simple existence of a military, intelligence, or law enforcement record doesn't cause the alarm bells to go off. It has much more to do with the plausibility and verifiability of the content of a given claim- which, it must be stressed once again, needs to be considered independently of any flights of oratory in condemnation of the villainy of the villans, by the purveyor of the claim<hr></blockquote> Absolutely. And with technical arguments about the planes and CD and stuff, we can check into those and sort of double check his work, but it's the ex-spook types who have "inside" info and anonymous sources and stuff that can't be independently verified that should always give us pause. Alot of damage can be done interpreting known events in a certain way by these people once their credibility is established too. And not all of the phoneys will exhibit a Skolnickian recklessness in presenting their claims.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The American commitment to an impersonal legal process is deep and wide, so I am not concerned about any kind of vigilantism or mob “justice.”<hr></blockquote> Yeah. Sure. That's what a fascist iron-fisted 'strict father' law-and-order throw'em in boot camp-type would write. A-G-E-N-T... P-R-O-V-O-C-A-T-E-U-R Puh-leeze. Total disinfo front man. And he's probably loving it, too. As for Ramsey Clark, I think Jeff has him wrong.  Last fall their was a Ramsey Clark thread started by user 'proldic' that hardly touched on the man but tried to declare him a Nazi-lover and then went into some other tangent. Totally missing was the context. The US had been recently exposed as protecting Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyons, as an intel asset and was going through a white-wash show trial to protect Uncle Sam's biggest lie: Nazi Exterminator for the World. Kurt Waldheim was also put through show trial machinations in the press and an HBO special (I have the videotape in my propaganda collection) which ended up exonerating Waldheim while the US prosecutor made a show of unrequited indignation. Prescott Bush, anyone? Allen Dulles? Wall Street? Eichmann's assistants? Project Paperclip? IBM? DuPont? Standard Oil? Naw. An old alleged camp guard living in the midwest was the meat to be ground in the US judicial system for the world to see. Since Clark is still doing his anti-imperial thing, I think another thread would be appropriate to examine each of the targets of the US government that Clark has publicly defended to show that he knows what the CIA/Pentagon is up to and is blowing the whistle, even if he isn't the most articulate mouthpiece and keeps getting painted as a stooge or disinfo artist. I've yet to see anyone, Jeff included, make a case against him that stood. Ramsey Clark certainly has defended the alphabet agencies' showcase targets and it is reasonable to determine whether the high correlation is a best-case or worst-case scenario. Starting with MLKing, I'm surprised that Jeff and this board would not examine the times and context of street riots rocking the nation and fascists like Reagan's National Guard Chief calling for putting blacks in those WWII internment camps at the time. Ramsey as Attorney General did resist some of the worst COINTELPRO abuses. Out of office he has exposed the US government's motives for prosecuting people to cover up larger crimes. That is worth looking at. Similarly, not everyone defending the Warren Commission need be in on the hit when the motive of not feeding a Missiles of October rerun is obvious. "Shut up and bury Oswald. Atleast millions haven't died. Yet." Likewise, I'm sure many in our Air Force are disgusted with NORAD and Operation Vigilant Guardian/Warrior scam but are not openly declaring that national security is a game being played by elements they probably can't identify. Jeff, look at this, please. Here's Ramsey applauding Phillip Agee and John Stockwell in an issue of Covert Action Quarterly, a CIA whistle-blower publication which is hard to access online, probably for that reason- <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CorruptionCovertActions.html">www.thirdworldtraveler.co...tions.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Corruption of Covert Actions by Ramsey Clark CovertAction Quarterly magazine, Fall 1998 Nothing is more destructive of democracy or peace and freedom through the rule of law than secret criminal acts by government. The fact, or appearance, of covert action by government agents or their surrogates rots the core of love and respect that is the foundation of any free democratic society. Every true citizen of any nation wants to be able to love her country and still love justice. Corrupt covert actions make this impossible. .... Despite common knowledge that the U.S. government is engaged continually in dangerous covert actions, some that can alter the futures of whole societies, most people cling desperately to the faith that their government is different and better than others, that it would engage in criminal, or ignoble, acts only under the greatest provocation, or direst necessity, and then only for a greater good. They do not want information that suggests otherwise and question the patriotism of anyone who raises unwanted questions. .... In Vietnam 30 years ago, with all of Charlie Company, including dozens of robust young American soldiers who shot and killed helpless Vietnamese women and children and many other U.S. military personnel witnesses to, or aware of, the slaughter at My Lai, few would imagine the murderous event could be kept secret. Yet few would deny the U.S. intended to do so. The tragedy barely came to light through the courage and perseverance of several men. Ron Ridenhour broke the story after personal inquiry with letters to the Congress. The hero of My Lai, Hugh Thompson, who ended the massacre by placing himself between the U.S. troops and surviving Vietnamese and ordering his helicopter machine gunner to aim at the American soldiers and shoot if they tried to continue, was removed from Vietnam, separated from the service, and threatened with prosecution supported by Congressmen Mendel Rivers and Edward Hebert. Lt. William Calley alone was convicted, confined to base for a while, and still enjoys government support. Only by the sacrifice and heroism of an unusual handful did the story become known, and even then there has never been an acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the U.S. The medal begrudgingly given Thompson in 1998 was for non-combat service. And My Lai is viewed as an aberration, an ambiguous aberration. When Salvadoran soldiers of the elite Atlacatl Battalion, which trained in the U.S., massacred Salvadoran villagers at El Mozote, shooting even infants Iying on wooden floors at point blank range, the U.S. government was able to cover up any public disclosure, even though top reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post and a TV team from CBS knew the story. It was a dozen years later before the massacre at El Mozote was confirmed, and years too late to affect U.S. plans for El Salvador, or the careers of those responsible for yet another U.S.-condoned, and inspired, massacre. Just to list a few of the alleged assassinations conducted or planned by U.S. agents exposes the crisis in confidence covert actions have created for our country. Allende, Lumumba, Diem, Bhutto, with many questioning whether President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., should be included, and U.S. planning for the assassination of Fidel Castro part of our public record, while air and missile attacks directed at Qaddafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq missed their targets. *** CIA Director Richard Helms pleaded guilty to perjury for false testimony he gave before the U.S. Senate on the CIA' s role in the overthrow of President Allende. He was fined, but his two-year prison sentence was suspended. But the American public is unaware of it, and Chile has never been the same. U.S. support for the overthrow of Allende was the essential element in that tragedy. For years, Patrice Lumumba's son would ask me whenever we met, first in Beirut, or later in Geneva, if the U.S. killed his father. I finally gave him a copy of former CIA officer John Stockwell's In Search of Enemies, which tells the story. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in later years that the U.S. killed Diem, painfully adding, "And Jack was responsible." Bhutto was removed from power in Pakistan by force on the l5th of July, after the usual party on the 4th at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, with U.S. approval, if not more, by General Zia al-Haq. Bhutto was falsely accused and brutalized for months during proceedings that corrupted the judiciary of Pakistan before being murdered, then hanged. That Bhutto had run for president of the student body at U.C. Berkeley and helped arrange the opportunity for Nixon to visit China did not help him when he defied the U.S. So we should not be surprised that patriotic Americans wonder whether, or even charge that, the U.S. government assassinated President John F. Kennedy and our greatest moral leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. We have been told time and again of the "Deadly Deceits" of our government, occasionally by career CIA officers like Ralph McGehee, by FBI agents, crime lab scientists, and city detectives like Frank Serpico. Major studies on the lawless violence of COINTELPRO, the Life and Death of National Security Study Memorandum 200, the police murders of Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, are a part of the lore of our lawless government. And still the People want to Believe. Our covert government's past is modest prologue to its new powers of concealment, deception, and deadly secret violent actions. Too often the government is supported by a controlled, or willingly duped, mass media, by collaborating or infiltrated international governmental organizations, and by key officials in vast transnational corporations. The new evil empires, terrorism, Islam, barely surviving socialist and would-be socialist states, economic competitors, uncooperative leaders of defenseless nations, and most of all the masses of impoverished people, overwhelmingly people of color, are the inspiration for new campaigns by the U.S. government ... to shoot first and ask questions later, to exploit, to demonize and destroy. The CIA is rapidly expanding its manpower for covert operations against these newfound enemies. The National Security apparatus, with major new overseas involvement by the FBI, is creating an enormous new anti-terrorism industry exceeding in growth rate all other government activities. *** The U.S. is not nearly so concerned that its acts be kept secret from their intended victims as it is that the American people not know of them. The Cambodians knew they were being bombed. So did the Libyans. The long suffering Iraqis know every secret the U.S. government conceals from the American people and every lie it tells them. Except for surprise attacks, it is primarily from the American people that the U.S. government must keep the true nature and real purpose of so many of its domestic and foreign acts secret while it manufactures fear and falsehood to manipulate the American public. The reasons for and effects of government covert acts and cultivated fear, with the hatred it creates, must remain secret for the U.S. to be able to send missiles against unknown people, deprive whole nations of food and medicine, and arrest, detain, and deport legal residents from the U.S. on secret allegations, without creating domestic outrage. As never before, it is imperative that the American people care about and know what their government is doing in their name. That we be demanding of government, skeptical, critical, even a little paranoid, because not to suspect the unthinkable has been made a dangerous naiveté by a government that does unthinkable things and believes it knows best. We must challenge controlling power in America that seeks to pacify the people by bread and circuses and relies on violence, deception, and secrecy to advance its grand plans for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. For 20 years, Ellen Ray, Bill Schaap, Lou Wolf, and Philip Agee, with the help of very few others, have struggled against all odds to alert our people to the perils of covert action. They started their lonely, courageous, dangerous struggle in what many want to think was the aftermath of the worst of times, but now we can clearly see the worst is yet to be. The American people owe an enormous debt of gratitude to these valiant few. The role of CovertAction Quarterly is more important than ever. Those who love America should support and defend its efforts, against the most powerful and secretive forces, to find the truth that can prevent our self-destruction and may yet set us free. *** Ramsey Clark was United States Attorney General during the Johnson administration. He is an international lawyer and human rights advocate, based in New York City, and a prolific author.<hr></blockquote>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:58 am

This is the one misleading statement in the above Covert Action Quarterly essay and I don't know if it is a mistake or not- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Justice William O. Douglas wrote in later years that the U.S. killed Diem, painfully adding, "And Jack was responsible."<hr></blockquote> While the assassination of Diem was due to US operatives, people who knew JFK say he was blind with fury when he found out that it had happened over the weekend and against his wishes because it was yet another calamitous event of many where CIA people like Allen Dulles and Averell Harriman were running their own foreign policy despite JFK who was out of the loop and knew it. So whether Ramsey Clark knows that to correct the quote from Justice Douglas or not in 1998 is debatable and, I would argue, not reason to doubt his sincere revulsion at the many murderous covert operations he listed as grave crimes against humanity. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/10/06 11:05 pm

by **robertdreed** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:03 am

I also grant some credence to personal interviews, if they're well-done by a good, trustworthy interviewer. I think that it's possible to take some measure of a person by how they come off when they answer a pointed line of questioning. Not as a make-or-break thing, although I think it can winnow out the obvious liars and the hucksters. Among other things, it's possible to find out if people are historically knowledgable, if they're knowledgable about their ostensible specialty, if they're caught in contradiction, if they're taking care to choose their words advisedly and precisely, whether they're spinning their message at the behest of someone else, or offering their own opinions. ( I think everyone has subjective biases- the question of "spin" comes into play when someone is acting as a mouthpiece for someone else's message. ) I tend to like people who admit the limits of their expertise and their knowledge, who are hesistant to venture opinions about motive, who bring up fact-based arguments that have at least a few elements of uncomfortable truth and iconoclasm for any given politically partisan position. Because that's the way the world that I know operates. I continue to be suspicious of "limited hang-outs" by people with government, military, CIA, etc. backgrounds- but at this point in time, I'm even more suspicious of such people if they fling wild, extreme claims around. I find it ironic when people get accused of "disinfo" and doing "limited hang-outs", even when they're supporting Bush impeachment or even indictment for offenses against the Constitution and war crimes, simply because they're being very careful to stick to incontrovertible facts; while people making unverifiable allegations and dark insinuations that stretch the bounds of credulity are lauded as the "real insider whistleblowers."

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>>if people are historically knowledgable, >if they're knowledgable about their ostensible specialty, >if they're caught in contradiction, >if they're taking care to choose their words advisedly and precisely, >whether they're spinning their message at the behest of someone else, or offering their own opinions. ( I think everyone has subjective biases- the question of "spin" comes into play when someone is acting as a mouthpiece for someone else's message. ) I tend to like people >who admit the limits of their expertise and their knowledge, >who are hesistant to venture opinions about motive, >who bring up fact-based arguments that have at least a few elements of uncomfortable truth and iconoclasm for any given politically partisan position. Because that's the way the world that I know operates.<hr></blockquote> Pretty good list of attributes. Well done. I'd be interested in your reaction to the Ramsey Clark essay I just posted.

by **greencrow0** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:12 am

Someone like Dr. Stephen Jones is such a significant contribution to the 9/11 truth movement.... I believe in the end it's science and forensic investigation of the crime that will relentlessly lead us to recognition and acceptance in the mainstream. We just have to keep plugging away at the physical evidence, and the scientific and forensic principles involved. There are bound to be more breakthroughs, more witnesses coming forward and more people coming over to the light. One area that has always intrigued me is The flight that went down the first week in December 2001 in Rockingham the suburb of NYC....they said the plane was 'caught in the draft' of the preceeding plane taking off but many witnesses saw an explosion taking the tail off...before the plane crashed. There was never a comprehensive investigation of this crash....I would like to know who was on that plane...their names and particularly their occupations....I believe they could be some 'low level facilitators' of the crime... who were invited off on a debriefing vacation...and then killed to silence them. I would like some investigator do a report on this aspect. Regards, GC

by **911 Eye Witness** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:26 am

Wow, not one response dealing with the substance of the posting. This is about what I've come to expect here. The comments are worse than dis-info, they're pointless. It's like so much conversation about Charlie Sheen's past behavior. There is also an offensive amount of insinuation about other people's motives... "For instance, I have no way of knowing whether RI poster darkbeforedawn is a witting disinformationist, or merely self-convinced and stubborn." If you don't know then why say it? Get an education in taking action: 911blogger.com 9/11 Truth is winning

by **robertdreed** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:40 am

I'm still undecided about Clark, after all these years. He's markedly emotional and articulate as an orator. But I've heard him say some real cock-and-bull stuff. Nothing I haven't heard elsewhere from the doctrinaire Left, of which I'm not a member. But considering his background, it's weird for me to hear him towing a dogmatic hard-left line so assiduously. Coming from Clark, it always sounds sort of canned, to me. Then there's the fact that Clark seems to have cornered the market on so many criminal cases of critical political import...after a while, I always wonder why it's always the same small cohort of lawyers who wind up in charge of those cases. I also wonder why the defendants are often markedly unsympathetic, if not all but assuredly guilty. It doesn't really do much for the cause of political dissent in this country to have the same small group of pronounced ideologues serving as defense attorneys in such cases. And why the recurrent dependence on such people to serve as defense counsellors, rather than on finding independent, non-partisan advocates without the reputation and its attendant baggage? I comprehend the motivations of defense lawyers better than I do those of politicians. But defense lawyer-politicians, oy... just like prosecutors or judges: don't be a politician. I want you to be one or the other. It's a distinction I wouldn't mind being written into law, in terms of eligibility for elective office. It's a tough one, because I'm often in sympathy with the causes with which Clark is associated. And I've heard him do well in debates, he often has a clear command of facts. But he seems to pop up in a lot of critical junctions that one would expect a "change agent" to appear. He's almost like the USA's Jacques Verges, or something. Not a position to aspire to, in my opinion. Ramsey Clark is another guy whose autobiography I wouldn't mind reading, if he has one. Presuming that it isn't ghostwritten, of course. I'd like to figure out what makes him tick. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 11:51 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:44 am

I think the subject of Reynolds has been dealt with head on. He is full of shit and probably just a front for an institutionally written disinfo website. As in, those aren't really his words. The problem of disinfo artists taking the 9/11 stage is probably the most commonly perceived subject of the original posting since most of us have known that the cover story of that day was fraudulant for atleast a few years by now. Hence the playing whack-a-mole with Reynolds. But admonitions to snap out of complacency about the crime is worth posting, I agree. It does suck up lots of energy as a 3000 dead people End of the Enlightenment crossword puzzle whodunnit while more victims just pile up every day. Perhaps the reason is that many believe that solving the 9/11 crime would be a big AHA to stop the intended permanent War on Terra and so is worth looking into for the psy-ops value, not just as a challenging puzzle. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/10/06 11:51 pm

by **robertdreed** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:49 am

"Wow, not one response dealing with the substance of the posting. This is about what I've come to expect here." EYe witness, you just got here. There's room to disagree about the nature of the "substance" of the Reynolds reprint. I view it as a promotional ad intended to buttress Reynolds' personal credibility, and his misdirections about the 9-11 attacks. We've been over and over discussing "alternative" 9-11 attack scenarios. Why concentrate on the physical evidence available to us, the vast Internet audience? There isn't any. What we have in its place is small slices of recorded media representing- or purporting to represent- a few aspects of the physical events. Fragmentary abridgements. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/10/06 11:56 pm

Will we win 911 info war? Reynolds--YES

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

slimmouse

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio

counterintelligence

Re: slimmouse

Re: Morgan Reynolds bio and his 'call for blood.' HA.

Re: Ramsey Clark's list of CIA assassinations.

counterintelligence

Re: RDR's counterintelligence

Re: slimmouse

Re: Original Posting?

Re: RDR's counterintelligence

Re: Original Posting?

Re: RDR's counterintelligence

Who is online