Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Either he was deliberately misrepresented in this interview...
OR
he's an agent.

You can not be in the secret-revealing biz and fail to know how 9/11 was a scam. Period.

[slomo]

Either he was deliberately misrepresented in this interview...
OR
he's an agent.

You can not be in the secret-revealing biz and fail to know how 9/11 was a scam. Period.

Or he's playing his cards very carefully to avoid alienating his intended audience.

[Elvis]

Do I believe the neocons and Pentagon planned 9/11(or had any part), or that flight 77 *didnt* hit the Pentagon, or that passengers didnt bring down Flight 93, or that al Qaeda and bin Laden were "framed" in a "false flag"? Absolutely not.

Not to get all off-topic, but 8bit, with all your study I'm surprised by your absolutism on those issues. I wouldn't bet against any of those, with the exception of the Flight 77 Pentagon thing (I'd bet that it was Flight 77). Without going into all the details we've heard a million times, I'd especially bet that a few American neocons et.al. (among other non-Al Qaeda actors) at least knew it was coming. Flight 93 really looks like a shoot-down to me. And OBL's early denials hold a lot more weight with me than the later "confessions."

Of course the people holding the cards are unlikely to ever lay them down (excepting people like FBI agents like Wright and others, Sibel Edmonds etc).

As far as Assange's attitude goes, a lot of smart people just haven't connected the dots.

Or he's playing his cards very carefully to avoid alienating his intended audience.

That makes much sense and has to be taken into account. "Period."

[barracuda]

Either he was deliberately misrepresented in this interview...
OR
he's an agent.

You can not be in the secret-revealing biz and fail to know how 9/11 was a scam. Period.

At least you're willing to cut the guy a little slack.

It's amazing how quick some of you gentlemen are to put this man under the knife. A comment made during an interview occurring sometime between a public lecture and a trip to a safe house, an interview we know little or nothing about the context of, or the circumstances of, or the editing of, and that's enough, he's CIA - a limited hangout, a gatekeeper.

Tough crowd.

At least we know exactly where the contributor on 911blogger stands, willing to sideline the seemingly important international crime revealing activities of Wikileaks, while focusing pointedly on the vague and meaningless offhand remarks by the likes of Bob Graham or Bob Kerry as some sort of invaluable touchstones in the search for suppositions. As far as I can tell, to even support the notion that Mr. Graham or Mr. Kerry were, with those comments, commiting some sort of "reveal" is either naïve or disingenuous.

I can think of any number of possible reasons why Mr. Assange might have been quoted saying what he did, all the while giving him the benefit of the doubt.

- He may not be in possession of the kind of quality evidence he needs to make a definitive statement on the matter.

- He may actually be in possession of information regarding 911 which is against his best interests to reveal at the moment.

- He may be in possession of information regarding 911 which assures him that it is not a game worth playing.

- He may be in possession of evidence regarding 911 which definitively shows that it is not a conspiracy of the nature commonly comsidered by persons who insist that 911 was a conspiracy.

- He may not be in possession of any evidence regarding 911 at all.

- He may not feel that the goals or activities of Wikileaks appreciably gain credibility or caché by associating them publicly with the nebulous notion of the 911 conspiracy as it is currently viewed by the media or the public.

- He may be under a typical coordinated badjacketing attack by areas of the intelligence community.

And so on. However I realise that in the case of this particular crime, opinions are rather black and white, lines become drawn, circuses and carnivals formed, etc.

In any case, to add to the fray, here is the interview with Wikileaks co-founder John Young in which he criticises the organisation, but not really, it seems, for being a limited hangout, but rather more for simply being not very good at what they purport to be doing.

[wintler2]

911 is overrated, both as an event and as a loyalty test for conspiracists. The fundamentalism being displayed reminds me of old hippies insisting that the JFK assassination is THE op, THE proof that the MIC runs the US blah blah.. i guess they must have been secret disinfo agents just like some accuse Assenge.

Belief in the importance of 911 is a form of magical thinking, "if only we could prove 911 was lihop/mihop then everything would be better..". Any disagreement with that flimsy belief is met with reactionary accusations of Agent!/heretic/tool of TPTB. It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Well said both of you.

[Montag]

911 is overrated, both as an event and as a loyalty test for conspiracists. The fundamentalism being displayed reminds me of old hippies insisting that the JFK assassination is THE op, THE proof that the MIC runs the US blah blah.. i guess they must have been secret disinfo agents just like some accuse Assenge.

Belief in the importance of 911 is a form of magical thinking, "if only we could prove 911 was lihop/mihop then everything would be better..". Any disagreement with that flimsy belief is met with reactionary accusations of Agent!/heretic/tool of TPTB. It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid.

Ha, ha good joke. I almost took that seriously.

That my government will willy-nilly kill thousands of it citizens is serious to me each and every day. I guess at a young age you realized what criminals your country was being lead by -- apparently you gave up on doing anything about long ago.

[Montag]

The real way to test Assange on this is to get hold of some unreleased classified US documents that clearly show US govt involvement on 9/11 and get wikileaks to release them.

Otherwise whats the big deal.

Who gives a fuck if he's annoyed by 9/11 truth?

I am too. And I'm not the only one on this website either.

I am not saying your work is unimportant. I only ask that you consider what your goals really are and how to accomplish them effectively and efficiently.

Yeah, I read your blog post, it was garbage. Do you realize people are put to death for murder in this country?

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^Yeah, I should re-write that, make it less abrasive because all the points I want to make are at the end.

9-11 was a successful operation that went down about 10 years ago. Things have only accelerated since then.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Thanks for the nudge, Montag, I fixed that up considerably. Much appreciated.

[Montag]

Thanks for the nudge, Montag, I fixed that up considerably. Much appreciated.

Well I just believe in keeping the flame alive... Even if no one will ultimately ever be held accountable.

p.s. I think Mike Ruppert at one point said, that he was done working on 9/11. I don't understand how you just turn the page on something like that, and add it to the realm of ancient history.

[barracuda]

I wouldn't worry too much about that, Montag. Plenty of people are still fuming over the march of Sherman.

[thatsmystory]

Greenwald:

The Government did not fail to detect the 9/11 attacks because it was unable to collect information relating to the plot. It did collect exactly that, but because it surveilled so much information, it was incapable of recognizing what it possessed ("connecting the dots").

The Real U.S. Government

It does seem rather strange that two popular critics of excessive government secrecy and abuse of civil liberties are both seemingly unable to apply their critique to 9/11. The secrecy in relation to 9/11 records is still in place. The 2008 Presidential election changed nothing in that regard. The 9/11 Commission met in 2004 and agreed that a good date for releasing some records was 1/19/09. Even that date was too early for some commissioners.

We never heard a word from the officials who ran Bin Laden units at the CIA and FBI. Even their 9/11 Commission MFR's (interview summaries) are still classified. Is this ok? Are Assange and Greenwald content with this secrecy? Should all the outrage be focused on the 9/11 truthers? Is there no correlation between the strange pre-9/11 conduct of many government officials and the post 9/11 claims (by many of the same officials) that police state powers were absolutely required to prevent more terrorist attacks?

[Montag]

It does seem rather strange that two popular critics of excessive government secrecy and abuse of civil liberties are both seemingly unable to apply their critique to 9/11. The secrecy in relation to 9/11 records is still in place. The 2008 Presidential election changed nothing in that regard. The 9/11 Commission met in 2004 and agreed that a good date for releasing some records was 1/19/09. Even that date was too early for some commissioners.

We never heard a word from the officials who ran Bin Laden units at the CIA and FBI. Even their 9/11 Commission MFR's (interview summaries) are still classified. Is this ok? Are Assange and Greenwald content with this secrecy? Should all the outrage be focused on the 9/11 truthers? Is there no correlation between the strange pre-9/11 conduct of many government officials and the post 9/11 claims (by many of the same officials) that police state powers were absolutely required to prevent more terrorist attacks?

Yes, why can't Assange get the Pentagon camera videos? Now that'd be a journalistic coup.

[barracuda]

Yeah, Greenwald. Faugh. Yet another leftist gatekeeper cum CIA tool.