Mark Rabinowitz?

by **chiggerbit** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:41 pm

You mention Meyssan. Did you know that Rumsfeld "slipped up" about a missile having struck the Pentagon the very week Meyssen's original no-plane website was launched? Was it a misstatement, or a misdirection? Didn't Rummy also misspeak about Flight 93 having been "shot down"? Sometimes I wonder if he is as uncomfortable as he appears, having to play his assigned fraudulent role. He looks like he would rather spit the truth out in your face and ask what the fuck you're going to do about it.

by **chiggerbit** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:56 pm

As a matter of fact, Rummy seems to stick his foot in his mouth a lot in the last few years. Anybody remember him making this statement about the logic of a draft, in which Rummy argues against one, saying Vietnam draftees "added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone." Whew, that one caused some sour stomachs among veterans. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/31/06 1:37 pm

by **Avalon** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:21 pm

In the first weeks following the September 11th attacks, Rendon operated at a frantic pitch. "In the early stages it was fielding every ground ball that was coming, because nobody was sure if we were ever going to be attacked again," he says It's been many years since I played baseball, and I don't watch it. But is there any reason that you would NOT go after every ground ball that came to your position? Go over, tell the Kuwaitis, 'Here's what you've got -- here's some observations, here's some recommendations, live long and prosper.'" Give them the Jewish Vulcan Trekker blessing? <a href="http://www.pinenet.com/rooster/v-salute.html">www.pinenet.com/rooster/v-salute.html</a>

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's been many years since I played baseball, and I don't watch it. But is there any reason that you would NOT go after every ground ball that came to your position?<hr></blockquote> To deke the runner?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:19 pm

MR is one of the few in the online truth movement to put energy into showing what disinfo and gatekeeping is and illustrate it. This is why he "steers away from some 9/11" stuff, the chaff in order to better discern the wheat. The other 9/11 site that does an excellent job of educating about the disinfo which obstructs understanding and also links to the best 9/11 sites (like MR's oilempire.us) is 911review.com NOT .org which is nasty. 911review.com has this on disinfo- <a href="http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html">911review.com/disinfo/index.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 8/31/06 9:02 pm

by **phineas** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:51 pm

My current favorite hit on the charts in all this is by Warren Buffett and the Jets. (Buffett was near Omaha's Sacom on 9-11, and met up with one of those damn Bush's there that day after a jet plowed into Buffett's Berkshire-Hathaway offices at the WTC.) Buffett, the 2nd richest man on the planet, owns "Netjets". Many eyewitnesses saw a small, white jet near the Pennsylvania crash when it happened. Philadelphia Daily News, November 2001: THE MYSTERY PLANE. Many people in the Shanksville area, including some interviewed by the Daily News, saw a fast-moving, unmarked small jet fly overhead a very short time after Flight 93 crashed... ... and it might have been one of Buffett's: Oddly enough, a NetJets executive company jet was "tracking" Flight 93 when it crashed in an open field in Shanksville, PA. "Additional recordings would be played from the cockpit of an executive jet that tracked Flight 93 on Sept. 11... An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company. Curiously, there is mention of possibly another "small white jet" near the towers on 9-11... Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. also has a subsidiary company called FlightSafety International Inc., a flight training school. "FlightSafety International is the world's largest provider of aviation services, training over 65,000 pilots annually at 42 Learning Centers in the U.S., Canada, France, and the U.K." Flight Safety was also selected by Raytheon as its subcontractor providing the Ground Based Training System for the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) used by the US Air Force and navy for primary pilot training. FlightSafety International Inc. is reported to have trained at least one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. Also interesting to note is that Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, another flight training school that reportedly trained at least one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, has ties with both FlightSafety International Inc. and NetJets along with a lot of other companies "indirectly involved" with 9/11, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), The Boeing Company, Lynne Chaney's Lockheed Martin, American Airlines (RE: flight #11), and Northrup Grumman... "Buh Buh Buh Buffett and the Jets..." <a href="http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html" target="top">killtown.911review.org/buffett.html</a> <a href="http://www.flightsafety.com/about.php" target="top">www.flightsafety.com/about.php</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phineas@rigorousintuition>phineas</A> at: 8/31/06 5:04 pm

by **NewKid** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:10 pm

There's a huge problem here with trying to come up with a unified field theory of disinformation to explain why you think some people argue this and some people argue that. You have to be careful not to let the disinformational tail wag the evidentiary dog. So I think it's a big mistake to try and frame Rummy's comments around Meyssan (assuming he's somebody's disinfo, and not just sloppy, it seems quite unlikely to me that he's coordinating his campaigns with anyone in the Pentagon or vice versa), Rabinowitz's website around Pentagon Strike or whatever. And quite a bit of the so-called evidence you think is conclusive or established, hasn't really been established at all. Even universal or near universal agreement on something in the 9-11 movement (or even in both the 9-11 movement and the official version) doesn't make it true. The fact is nobody here knows who's disinformation and who's not, both because you don't know what you don't know and because it's a sort of phony dualism. These 9-11 people on the internet aren't simply either honest brokers seeking the truth or govt disinfo agents; just about all of them are probably somewhere in between. People like Ruppert, Rabinowitz, Hopsicker, Hoffman, etc. all live in a sort of grey area of manipulation that's probably several layers insulated from any govt agency psy-op teams. Yeah, some are sloppy thinkers, some are gullible, some are very meticulous and well researched on most stuff, but seem to have a blind spot here or there. But all of them make honest mistakes and all of them are being manipulated at least to some extent. (Honest mistakes can actually explain quite a bit of the crap that comes out on 9-11.) Now you could argue that the most credible researchers are there simply to build up credibility with accurate analysis on most 9-11 issues, only to slip in a poision pill in one particular area. And the real truth is fed to the crappy researchers so nobody will believe them. So you can come up with almost any disinfo theory to fit facts and explain what you want to explain, and it really gets you nowhere. (Getting invested into disinfo theories also has the unfortunate effect of causing people to miss important evidence or skew their logic.) Either the facts can be verified or they can't. There is no 'trust me' from anyone in the area of 9-11. Take Ruppert for example. There's been a lot of talk about him in another thread. Now I don't find him very credible, but I also rather doubt he's working for the CIA. Ruppert has a hero complex, a persecution complex, and substantial emotional problems. He can self-destruct or misdirect people largely on auto-pilot (the same goes for a great many conspiracy researchers); he doesn't need to be an "agent" or an "asset" to put out crap (or even sabotage his office), and I doubt he is. But that's sort of irrelevant in any event. Either what Ruppert says can verified and checked out or it can't. Either his predictions come true, or they don't. That's about all you can do. Knowing motives or who they work for and all the rest just isn't realistic given the state of knowledge available. The other thing to remember is these guys can have all sorts of other loyalities besides the conspiracy readers, even if they're not govt disinformation. They have other audiences beyond the folks at home as well. So keep that in mind too. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 8/31/06 5:30 pm

by **Byrne** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:12 pm

Excellent summation NK, I agree that it is futile/wrong to try & frame anyone with a disinfo tag by association (& my links to the Rabinowitz/Meyssan articles were for others to explore/judge). Your poision pill analogy is most certainly ocurring - lets face it, that is what Rendon & their ilk of privatised OSS/CIA organisations are doing/have done - dispensing truckloads of poison pills by their own admission. If it is accepted that 911 was an inside job (& we can all argue about the depth of the complicity till the cows come home), then Rendon's admitted <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/4" target="top">frantic pitching</a> in the immediate aftermath of 911 and beyond, means that there is more disinfo out there than we would dare to imagine (a proportion of their $50 million to $100 million contract value with the Pentagon/Defense Dept between 2000 & 2004).

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:40 pm

Good points, NewKid. And we should be careful to realize that while there is certainly planted disinformation out there, it is often spread gullibly -- but sincerely -- as misinformation.

Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Rendon's turns of phrase

Re: Rendon's turns of phrase

Re: Mark Rabinowitz? Good Guy.

Re: Rendon's turns of phrase

Re: Mark Rabinowitz? Good Guy.

Re: Mark Rabinowitz? Good Guy.

Re: Mark Rabinowitz? Good Guy.

Who is online