hopsicker on the 911 bullshit movement, john gray, ruppert

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:50 pm

nemesis on the premesis/reading from the book of genesis! <a href="http://wfmu.org/listen.m3u?show=19443&archive=28267">wfmu.org/listen.m3u?show=...hive=28267</a>

by jc » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:42 pm

dude, awesome, thx. A John Gray Dossier by Brian Salter questionsquestions.net, 9 September 2004 Update, 29 September 2004: More information continues to circulate among 9/11 researchers who have been following the John Gray - Ramy el Batrawi - Adnan Khashoggi connection. The following two articles are examples of more direct proof from mainstream media sources of the el Batrawi - Khashoggi partnership extending back years before the Genesis Intermedia affair. Even more alarmingly, the events in question involve a company funded by el Batrawi and Khashoggi which was caught engaging in illegal arms shipments to Iran. (note that the first article uses an alternate spelling, Ramy El Batrawi = Remy Al Batswani).<a href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/johngraydossier.html">www.questionsquestions.ne...ssier.html</a> <a href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/johngraydossier.html">more</a>

by **steve vegas** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:48 pm

Just listening to this now. Amazing. I feel like Hopsicker is the only one getting close to any truth on this. I hope more RI'ers will listen to this with a critical ear and offer thier opinions.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:16 am

I'm terribly crunched for time. Can ya give some bullet points? Is the same info at Hobsicker's website or is it just in that audio? Probably complex but a clue would help thanks.

by **NewKid** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just listening to this now. Amazing. I feel like Hopsicker is the only one getting close to any truth on this. <hr></blockquote> Just curious, but can I ask why? I didn't listen to the whole thing, but what I heard of Hopsicker here bordered on incoherent. It almost sounded like a parody of bad conspiracy thinking and analysis. (Um, um, and he knew a guy, who um, worked with this other guy, who, um, knew this guy who sounds like a nasty Arab dude, who, um, knew somebody who once was told by a guy that he said he knew about Huffman Aviation, and later told me about a guy, who, um, used to work in the convenience store that Atta's dad came to that erased the video tape.) Now I yield to nobody in being the first to label John Gray a charlatan, but the Gray thing is sort of old news, and as the QQ thing illustrates, was thoroughly discussed in 9-11 circles a couple of years ago. So I think to say that Gray or AK are controlling the 9-11 truth movement is wildly offbase. In fact, as far as I can tell, Gray's not any sort of force within the 9-11 movement, if he ever was. Now that's certainly not to say the 9-11 truth folks are not being manipulated, but I don't think it's by Gray or AK. And what's with the obnoxious fight picking with Ruppert. Even if you think Ruppert's a charlatan (which I tend to think) this just reeks of the sort unnecessary pie throwing engaged in by disinformation peddlers and conspiracy theorists with bruised egos. Ruppert's already massively discredited in the eyes of a large number of the conspiracy community for his personal style and his peak oil crusade (Ruppert, of course, has already pronounced 9-11 a dead issue), so whatever the problems with the 9-11 movement, Ruppert is largely irrelevant. Every time I hear Hopsicker, I hope to get a coherent presentation of argument and evidence, and just about every time I hear him, I come away disappointed. It's not that he doesn't claim to have a big picture that bothers me, it's more that he does. There's just a weird juxtaposition of the bizarre six of degrees of separation name dropping (largely without any sort of explanation) coupled with expression of great certainty about events which he couldn't possibly have any certainty that makes me think there's just a something a little off about this guy. Somebody please, explain to me why I'm wrong. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/22/06 2:12 am

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:01 am

NewKid, I've avoided talking about Hopsicker, but now I've got to say that I'm extremely wary of him and of the role he's playing with the whole 9/11 thing. I used to keep up with the "Mad Cow News", until about 3 years ago, I came across something he wrote about the Israeli occupation, in which he argued passionately that it is the Israelis whose rights are violated by the Palestinians, because it is the Palestinians who are occupying land that legitimately belongs to the Israelis in the West Bank (which he referred to as "Judea and Samaria"). My eyes popped out of my head when I read this, I kept checking to make sure he personally wrote that, my disbelief making me doubt my own eyes. This being a major litmus test for me, he was utterly discredited as far as I was concerned. Since then, every time his name has come up, I've tried to find that article, but it appears to have been somehow scrubbed from the net. But I'm sure of what I read, and I don't trust the guy farther than I could throw him.

by **steve vegas** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:11 am

Well, I kind of feel the same way about Hopsicker, but beyond his stammering and the fact that he sounds stoned, he actually seems to be piecing together real evidence that could be tested or tried in court. He's actually naming names and drawing lines between the names, and it seems to lead to a black-ops money trail. I don't hear any other 9/11 researcher doing that. I really don't think I'll ever be convinced by any of the arguments that rely on studying video tape and photographs, it's all too easily debunked by "voices of authority", not that I necessarily give those voices any credence, I'm just interested in unraveling the whodunnit aspect. Who the hell did it, and who the hell was behind it? If it was Dick Cheney guiding planes by remote control, great, but how the hell will we ever get confirmation on that? We won't. If the planes were holograms or holographs, fine, where's the holograph generator? You can see where I'm going with this. Hopsicker is at least trying to devise a working theory. My problem with his story is when we get into characters like Sammy al Arian, who, in the Emory/Hopsicker vortex is a villain, but, in the Democrcay Now! tidepool he's maligned hero. As always, who's zoomin' who? To recap, Hopsicker seems to be pulling at some threads that might unravel the mystery, but maybe he's not, I'm not a good enough judge of his sources, methods and conclusions to really draw any conclusions of my own. That's why I threw it to the board. I'm just saying when I listen to Hopsicker I hear someone who seems to at least be attempting to piece together a semi-realistic narrative that might be verifiable at certain points along the plotline, but maybe not.

by **steve vegas** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I came across something he wrote about the Israeli occupation, in which he argued passionately that it is the Israelis whose rights are violated by the Palestinians, because it is the Palestinians who are occupying land that legitimately belongs to the Israelis in the West Bank (which he referred to as "Judea and Samaria").<hr></blockquote> I'm also suspicious of his and Dave Emory's and John Loftus's alarmingly uncritical position on the Israeli government.

by **Byrne** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:39 am

HMW, There is a summary of the Dave Emory/Hopsicker’s conversation <a href="http://ftrsummary.blogspot.com/2006/06/ftr-555-conversation-with-daniel.html" target="top">here</a>.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:46 am

dude...I think hopsicker is one of the one's on the right track. The list of weird "former" insiders, and the like behind 9/11 truth was one of the first things that got me wondering. Naturally, people will point to skepticism of 9/11 truth movement as equating with acceptance of the official story, which is, of course, stupid. There would be no need for a pretty well orchestrated disinfo campaign if there were not real information out there that someone doesn't want us looking into.  Hopsicker's version is not as "neat" as 9/11 truth. It requires the idea of a larger nexxus of players and what it does for me is remind me that contrary to the idea that just a few bad apples are in the nwo barrel, the whole, filthy, rotten system is fairly corrupt from top to bottom. You aren't going to be able to pick out a few bad guys, lock 'em up and then say, "America is a beacon of justice and peace, once again." That is a myth, brought to you by , among others, the Rockefeller foundation. I wish it were that simple, too, as I don't see the revolution as exactly right around the corner. I'm pretty sick of people not being critical of all these "former" administration insiders and "former" CIA agents and "former" NSA officials leading the way to "truth." sorry for the pretty subjective rant...go read these folks yourself for the details. Hopsicker needs an editor and because he does his own research there would, I suppose, need to be a certain matter of "faith" in deciding if he's presenting his findings honestly. Emory, however, does NOTHING but read the sources he utilizes. Makes for a soporific listening experience, but you always know EXACTLY where his information is coming from.

by **NewKid** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:28 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>dude...I think hopsicker is one of the one's on the right track. The list of weird "former" insiders, and the like behind 9/11 truth was one of the first things that got me wondering. Naturally, people will point to skepticism of 9/11 truth movement as equating with acceptance of the official story, which is, of course, stupid. <hr></blockquote> Listening to the rest of that interview, it doesn't sound like Hopsicker really challenges the official story. Just to take one point, he seems absolutely certain that controlled demolition didn't happen and that everything pretty much went down like the govt said. Evidence? "You don't see people question the suicide bombers as being patsies." Now that has to be one of the stupider arguments I've heard in awhile. I think it's fine to believe the official version on what happened, but to be persuasive at this point in the game, you'll have to do more than say, 'trust me.' As far as I can tell, he's never made any kind of technical arguments in support of NIST, the FEMA report, the Silverstein litigation report, the Greening analysis, etc. Nor has he even commented on the technical arguments advanced by any of the CD proponents. And even if he had, what qualifications does he have to render such an opinion? So where's he getting this from? Show me, don't tell me, as the Rush song goes. And, at least in my view, his writings aren't much better. The ones on 9-11 disinfo linked in that blog post consist of somewhat bizarre ramblings of largely half-baked speculation and innuendo. They also seem to be focusing on fairly marginal characters within the 9-11 movement, who, if they were ever that influential, are certainly not anymore. Again, it's not to say the 9-11 movement has it all down, or isn't being manipulated, but his arguments on that program about 9-11 disinfo are at the very least a couple of years out of date. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There would be no need for a pretty well orchestrated disinfo campaign if there were not real information out there that someone doesn't want us looking into. <hr></blockquote> I agree, although I tend to think when they engage in it, it's more with the mindset of "well, of course, everything's just like the official story, but we wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea, so we better keep em guessing to make sure there's no mass mobilization in favor of really investigating this stuff; there are just some things the public doesn't really need to know about." <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hopsicker's version is not as "neat" as 9/11 truth. It requires the idea of a larger nexxus of players and what it does for me is remind me that contrary to the idea that just a few bad apples are in the nwo barrel, the whole, filthy, rotten system is fairly corrupt from top to bottom. <hr></blockquote> All true, but I don't think the 9-11 truth movement is anywhere near monolithic on any kind of Bush/Cheney did it thesis. In fact, if any group could be accused of wishful thinking on the 'just dump Bush, and we'll be back to normal' meme, it's the convential liberal bloggers, who don't really talk about 9-11 at all. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm pretty sick of people not being critical of all these "former" administration insiders and "former" CIA agents and "former" NSA officials leading the way to "truth." <hr></blockquote> I am too, but again, I think most of those people reside in the Nation magazine, Firedoglake circles (e.g. Larry Johnson, Baer, Joe Wilson). Now there is the Morgan Reynolds phenomenon, but he seems to have been marked by a bunch of people as a fairly flaky guy with his theories. He made a remark in Chicago on one of those videos that he thought the moon landing was faked and the next presenter got up and immediately distanced himself from that and seemed somewhat surprised at Reynolds. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/22/06 7:30 am

by **greencrow0** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He made a remark in Chicago on one of those videos that he thought the moon landing was faked<hr></blockquote> Which it was... GC

by **NewKid** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:54 am

Maybe so, GC (I doubt it, but don't really know or care and that's another thread), but the point is not so much whether it's true or not, as simply the fact that Reynolds has flagged himself in the minds of many in 9-11 truth by those comments. As the moon landing threads indicate, a great deal of folks who believe 9-11 was an inside job don't believe the landings were faked and will immediately regard someone arguing that with suspicion. See also the fate of Eric Hufschmidt in this regard (although to be fair, holocaust denial probably had more do to with people distancing themselves from him than faked moon landing arguments).

by **Dreams End** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:20 am

I'm going to say...please...no moonlanding stuff on this thread. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Listening to the rest of that interview, it doesn't sound like Hopsicker really challenges the official story. <hr></blockquote> He does nothing BUT challenge the official story. You are doing exactly what I said one shouldn't, which is to suggest that anyone who doesn't challenge the "physics" side is somehow accepting of the official story. The CIA/drug/arms dealer connections are not exactly mainstream, nor are they in the NIST report, nor are they any part of the "official story". typical quote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The man who owned the ‘terror’ flight school in Venice Florida is involved with false front airlines, dummy front companies, shadowy charter operations of dubious intent and a politically-well-connected network plugged in to everyone from First Brother Jeb Bush to Clinton "fund-raiser" Truman Arnold. <hr></blockquote> In fact, ANY theory of 9/11, from holograms on down, if pursued honestly would likely lead to Florida in some capacity. Drugs, rightwing cubans, jeb Bush, Katherine Harris...nice little state. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 6/22/06 8:26 am

by **NewKid** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:24 am

By 'official story', I mean the actual events of the day, e.g., that it was all the hijackers and that the air defenses failed through incompetence, and the hijackers really were motivated to get America, etc. (the implication in the interview seems to be that they're real terrorists). Of course, he's not 100% on board when you talk about the underworld stuff, otherwise, he'd have nothing to say. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/22/06 8:27 am

hopsicker on the 911 bullshit movement, john gray, ruppert

hopsicker on the 911 bullshit movement, john gray, ruppert

more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: Hopsicker

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Re: more on john gray

Who is online