Mark Rabinowitz?

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:47 am

Browsing wikipedia I came upon his name and found his views to be rather similar to mine, with a few possible exceptions. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Robinowitz">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Robinowitz</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Positions on 9/11 Although Mr. Robinowitz believes that the U.S. government is complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he rejects many theories held by fellow 9/11 researchers. For example, he states that the pod plane, Mossad active involvement, fake phone calls, no 757 at the Pentagon, hologram planes, and similar theories are disinformation. He chides several researchers for “muddying the waters” and attempting to distract the public from “real evidence of complicity.” [1] He is critical of but does not reject alleged controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as possible proof of U.S. government complicity. [2]<hr></blockquote> That's pretty much how one might describe my current view on CD. I also reject pod planes, holograms, and no-plane theories. I'm open to the idea of fake phone calls, though. And I would never reject the idea that the Mossad were involved, let alone call it disinfo. So that makes me skeptical of him. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>However, he believes that Dick Cheney may have been the mastermind[3], UA Flight 93 was shot down [4], the Air Force was stood down [5] with the help of war games [6], the Pentagon attack was designed to minimize casualties, and that the planes were flown using remote control technology.[7]<hr></blockquote>[/quote] That's what really caught my eye, since I've always felt a little uneasy about deriding no-plane theories but at the same time championing a remote control theory. To me, it's a simple and obvious difference, with remote control being more of an "Occam's Razor" theory than either the official version or the no-plane/missile/decoy theories. It was comforting to see a researcher who seems to have the same position. Anyway, then his bio gets into Peak Oil, and I really have no idea what to make of that. Seems to be a lot of hostility toward "Peak Oilers", especially Ruppert, and I can see how "Peak Oil" could be manipulative bullshit. But I can also see it maybe being a motive for a lot of the heinous shit the elite does. So I'm totally undecided about that. If anyone can help me out there... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 8/31/06 3:48 am

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:04 am

Seems that the wiki bio overstates his reluctance to consider Israelis as participants. Which is good. Damn, the more I read on his site, the more I'm impressed. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Peer review is not censorship.<hr></blockquote> Exactly. He quotes Jeff and various RI blog comments. Which, of course, makes me like him. I really, really hope that the Peak Oil thing isn't BS. But I'm all ears, let's hear about it. Is Peak Oil bullshit? And also, if it's bullshit... Is it such obvious bullshit that any proponent is a fraud?

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:10 am

<a href="http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html">www.oilempire.us/demolition.html</a>

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:38 am

I'm in general agreement with Mark on much regarding 9/11, right down to the speculation on remote control. I have a different take on peak oil. I suspect it's both genuine and a manipulation, because while oil is peaking for us and serving as a catalyst for a managed collapse and population reduction, the zero point field and anti-gravity tech is waiting in the wings for them.

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I suspect it's both genuine and a manipulation, because while oil is peaking for us and serving as a catalyst for a managed collapse and population reduction, the zero point field and anti-gravity tech is waiting in the wings for them.<hr></blockquote> That's interesting, Jeff. I think you're probably right. How do Peak Oilers feel about that distinction?

by **Byrne** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:21 am

Rabinowitz seems to have begun his 911 'activities' around early 2003, around the time when Theiry Meyssan's 'Pentagate' book & the pentagonstrike.co.uk flash animation was making an impression...... Some background info is <a href="http://catalyticconverter.blogspot.com/2005/04/email-from-cointelpro-and-shocking-911.html" target="top">here</a> & <a href="http://catalyticconverter.blogspot.com/2005/05/robinowitz-and-snitch-jacketing.html" target="top">here</a>

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:54 am

Ummm, sorry Byrne but none of that was convincing. I don't get the feeling that MR wants people to "move away" from 9/11. And honestly, if some people are upset that he doesn't believe in their no-plane theories, then IMO fuck 'em. No-plane theories are as obvious a diversion as there is. But what's this about MR warning people away from sites? Can someone post that list? Should be interesting. And perhaps it will show up MR.

by **erosoplier** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:12 am

I think that the behaviour of America, and other players, over the last 50 years - especially the last 5 years - provides good evidence that there really aren't any free lunches out there in nature. From this point of view, it's all about the oil, and about who gets control of the remains of the first and last easy energy. From this point of view, believing that there are solutions to our near insatiable energy demands, in the form of actual technologies that are being withheld/kept hidden from us, only serves to stop us from thinking and behaving realistically in the present moment. If you're going to be an underling, there is some consolation in knowing that your social and economic masters, if not inherently superior to you, had access to special knowledge and information which you did not. It would be especially humbling to learn that your masters eat, shit, and die just like you, and that the only special access they had was to a mere illusion of superiority. Yet you lived your whole lives in awe of this illusion. Having said that, I am open to being convinced otherwise. But this isn't something I'm likely to do a google search on any time soon, so if there are any links people would like to offer up for examination, let's have 'em.

by **Byrne** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:46 am

FB, You must agree that Rabinowitz wants people to "move away" from some aspects of 9/11?! His e-mailing to (at least one) webmasters who linked to the <a href="http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/" target="top">pentagonstrike.co.uk flash presentation</a> (which, upon viewing, convinces most people of NP@TP) is verification of that. Other folks can judge for themeselves by visiting the 1st link in my post above (<a href="http://catalyticconverter.blogspot.com/2005/04/email-from-cointelpro-and-shocking-911.html" target="top">catalyticconverter.blogspot.com/2005/04/email-from-cointelpro-and-shocking-911.html</a>). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No-plane theories are as obvious a diversion as there is<hr></blockquote> I think it is useful to distinguish between 1) No Plane at the Pentagon & 2) No plane(s) at the WTC I have been convinced of 1) since first researching 911. I always thought that 2) was silly & a diversion, but then you have to ask, who is diverting who? Since reading Dr Debugs (No Planes needed) analysis at DU (<a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92675" target="top">here</a>, <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97281" target="top">here</a> & <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x97987" target="top">here</a>), I have had the paradigm shift into now not just dismissing the No plane at the WTC theory, although I still (like you on CD) need further convincing. We are told that the Pentagon, through Rendon etc., spends millions of Dollars on disinfo & 'info warfare' programs/tactics. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Rendon was also charged with engaging in "military deception" online -- an activity once assigned to the OSI. The company was contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic -- and "participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked." <...> 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 was 'What do you know about this, what do you know about that, what else can you get, can you talk to somebody over here?' We functioned twenty-four hours a day. We maintained situational awareness, in military terms, on all things related to terrorism. We were doing 195 newspapers and 43 countries in fourteen or fifteen languages. If you do this correctly, I can tell you what's on the evening news tonight in a country before it happens. I can give you, as a policymaker, a six-hour break on how you can affect what's going to be on the news. " <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997" target="top">source</a><hr></blockquote> We have to ask ourselves....What agendas/tasks were/are they pursuing with respect to the 911 coverup? They state that it was in case of another attack, but I do not believe that. What do you think Rendon were up to?

by **Byrne** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Can someone post that list? let's have 'em<hr></blockquote> Not having a go at you guys but......you can then bet that such links won’t remain……….

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:59 am

You must agree that Rabinowitz wants people to "move away" from some aspects of 9/11?! So do I. There have been too many dead ends, false leads and misdirections, and "Pentagon missile" leads the pack of offenders. 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?

by **sunny** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:09 am

<a href="http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/08/penta-bomb.html" target="top">Cannonfire</a> takes on Meysson and the no-planers.

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>FB, You must agree that Rabinowitz wants people to "move away" from some aspects of 9/11?! His e-mailing to (at least one) webmasters who linked to the pentagonstrike.co.uk flash presentation (which, upon viewing, convinces most people of NP@TP) is verification of that. Other folks can judge for themeselves by visiting the 1st link in my post above (catalyticconverter.blogspot.com/2005/04/email-from-cointelpro-and-shocking-911.html).<hr></blockquote> Wanting people to move away from some aspects of 9/11 is entirely different from wanting to "move away from 9/11", and the depiction of it as such indicates that people will misrepresent him in order to discredit him. If someone was proposing a theory that Jerry Lee Lewis was piloting Flight 93, and that theory was gaining steam...wouldn't it be imperative to try to move people away from it? Blanketing blogs for that purpose would be a reasonable thing to do, in that case. I mean, what else can you do to stop the spread of such a diseased theory? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think it is useful to distinguish between 1) No Plane at the Pentagon & 2) No plane(s) at the WTC I have been convinced of 1) since first researching 911. I always thought that 2) was silly & a diversion, but then you have to ask, who is diverting who? Since reading Dr Debugs (No Planes needed) analysis at DU (here, here & here), I have had the paradigm shift into now not just dismissing the No plane at the WTC theory, although I still (like you on CD) need further convincing.<hr></blockquote> There is surely a distinction between Pentagon no-plane and WTC no-plane. Pentagon no-plane has mixed some interesting facts in its speculation, and WTC no-plane has basically mixed zero fact in its speculation. Hanjour couldn't have flown the plane: Doesn't mean there wasn't a plane. Exterior of the wedge reinforced, skeleton crew in the area: Doesn't mean there wasn't a plane. Confiscation of tapes: Doesn't mean there wasn't a plane. Not one piece of evidence I've seen in the Pentagon no-plane catalog leads to the conclusion that there wasn't a plane. The hole is impossible to size up and I've seen ridiculous assertions about what a plane should have done to the exterior. The debris photographed is assumed to be planted. The witnesses who saw a 757 are assumed to be lying. Even the witnesses who saw a "smaller plane" are assumed to be lying. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We are told that the Pentagon, through Rendon etc., spends millions of Dollars on disinfo & 'info warfare' programs/tactics.<hr></blockquote> I'm sure they're spending it. And I'd bet that Therry is on their payroll. Or do you think that the Pentagon released the video days after the book's release because they were genuinely nervous about his theories? Doesn't it make more sense that they had the footage prepared for the book's release, like a 1-2 punch? Please, Byrne, please for the love of god DISMISS the WTC no-plane nonsense. It's absolute horseshit. We're talking about calling every person in the WTC who literally saw a plane approach and hit the building, who literally smelled the jet fuel, every person in the street who saw the planes, every person who took film or photographs -- calling them all liars. Unless, what the holograph/virtual reality technology is that good? Come on. WTC no-plane = disinfo, no ifs ands or buts. Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who presents themselves as a serious researcher and posits a WTC no-plane theory = disinfo agent. The WTC no-plane theory is like a gift to us from the government, like they handed us a bucket of paint to throw on invisible men. What do I think Rendon was doing? I don't know. I'd love to know, though. Coming up with crazy memes like WTC no-plane shit and posting it on message boards? Who knows. At this point, one can't distinguish between people like us who might get honestly suckered into a poisonous meme like that, and trolls who are paid to spread that shit virally.

by **Byrne** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:30 am

Jeff, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Was it a misstatement, or a misdirection? <hr></blockquote> I'd say it was a misstatement - a slip up by Rumsfeld, him being aware that a missile DID hit the Pentagon. But.....what do I know?.......... & What do you think Rendon were up to in the immediate weeks after 911?

by **FourthBase** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:30 am

Keeping the recent threads "threaded": <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=5881.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...5881.topic</a> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=5866.topic&start=21&stop=33">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=33</a> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=5739.topic&start=181&stop=184">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1&stop=184</a> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=5523.topic&start=41&stop=50">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...41&stop=50</a>

Mark Rabinowitz?

Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: easy energy etc.

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Re: Mark Rabinowitz?

Who is online