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

[Montag]

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

Well I think the CIA would be at the head of the line (in anger), if anything was done to curtail the freedom of anonymous bloggers. It's undoubtedly a useful tool in their panoply of weapons.

[barracuda]

Right. I figure most people who would advocate for freedom of speech simply do so in order to facilitate the survelliance of activists who would avail themselves of that right anyway.

He's on the payroll.

[thatsmystory]

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

Is it unfair to point out the inconsistency of people who concern themselves with the lack of transparency in government? We aren't just talking about 9/11 but rather the context of everything that followed.

[82_28]

It's just a matter of pure guttural reaction to images for me. I can never trust someone who looks like a villain from a Die Hard movie.



He seems to play "some kind of part". Image and everything. Too real by half.

[barracuda]

Is it unfair to point out the inconsistency of people who concern themselves with the lack of transparency in government? We aren't just talking about 9/11 but rather the context of everything that followed.

Not at all. But it's quite another thing to denounce those people as somehow compromised and then proceed from there towards a world-view that claims to have any real insight. Greenwald and Assange certainly have access to just as much information regarding the various issues of interest in the 911 case as you or I do, but they seem to have their own opinion with regard to the import of that information and it's extremity of relevance to their daily output some ten years on. Greenwald, as I recall, has extensively thrown his light upon the anthrax penumbra, among other items of interest. What and how much, exactly, do you require of him or Assange for them to live up to your dreams of justice?

[thatsmystory]

Is it unfair to point out the inconsistency of people who concern themselves with the lack of transparency in government? We aren't just talking about 9/11 but rather the context of everything that followed.

Not at all. But it's quite another thing to denounce those people as somehow compromised and then proceed from there towards a world-view that claims to have any real insight. Greenwald and Assange certainly have access to just as much information regarding the various issues of interest in the 911 case as you or I do, but they seem to have their own opinion with regard to the import of that information and it's extremity of relevance to their daily output some ten years on. Greenwald, as I recall, has extensively thrown his light upon the anthrax penumbra, among other items of interest. What and how much, exactly, do you require of him or Assange for them to live up to your dreams of justice?

I didn't state that they were compromised. I don't know where they are coming from in relation to their views on 9/11.

The point is that many 9/11 records are still secret all this time later. Time doesn't magically make the cover-up go away. Just as a Presidential election doesn't make the corruption go away. All I expect from people who focus on excessive government secrecy is an admission that this secrecy includes information about 9/11.

[barracuda]

I don't think there's any way in the world you can make the case that Greenwald has somehow avoided performing what you happen to perceive as a responsibility. Assange is neither a journalist nor a professional commentator. I tend to view his remark about 911 as either a display of a lack of interest in a mystery for which he can offer no clues as to its resolution, or a genuine disparagement of a subject the intricacies of which he likely understands better than either of us. But that is most likely because that interpretation fits my personal perspective.

[8bitagent]

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.

While I never understood how a para-political/conspiracy/paranormal believing person could turn around and buy the official 9/11 story(or even support the wars that followed),
I also question the truth faithful who fantasize over this "someday the TRUTH will come out". We all hold to our own truths, but often these major events serve as rorschach tests.
It becomes a religion of faith. Belief in Christ, or bombs in the building...proselytizing to those in hopes of them discovering the "truth"(tm), when often said truth is mainly the same over parroted half truths and talking points. Perhaps, if one repeats "facts" long enough, they will magically be true.

My mental paradigm would not be challenged or hurt if it came out that the violent sheering of the planes into the towers was the physical culprit of the collapses. Or that al Qaeda was intimatley involved. Or if Osama was involved, and Cheney wasnt. Theyre all just puppets of the same machine in my view. The film inception had at least one good idea, and that is...well, the power of implanting an idea that never dies. This one just happens to be the "planes into buildings" meme.

[8bitagent]

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.

Have you seen the documentary Collapse? I completely understand why Rupert turned his back on "9/11 Truth". He was one of the first to point out the deep state parapolitical shenanigans swirling around the event(even giving presentations a mere two months after sept 11th), and he was warning back then about how tempting it was for people to turn it into a fiction riddled circus and focus on pointless menutia and false claim honeypots. And sure enough, by 2006 9/11 "truth" became a laughing stock dipped in "plane swaps", "missiles" and other gobbledygookery.

Rupert saw that while all the energy of the parapolitically minded was focused on half truths and dead ends, he saw the long term agenda.

[Montag]

It's just a matter of pure guttural reaction to images for me. I can never trust someone who looks like a villain from a Die Hard movie.

He seems to play "some kind of part". Image and everything. Too real by half.

Haha... I've thought the same thing about him 82_28, it's like he was cast in Los Angeles (as was Osama Bin Laden probably). These guys are dead ringers for the parts that they play. I for one am asking? What's up with that?

[8bitagent]

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?

Well, why is it that we saw more real "truth" and investigative journalism in 2001-2003 in the mainstream, than since? Israeli mossad spies, Saudi intelligence stage managing the hijackers, Pakistani ISI, Able Danger, Coleen Rowley, Robert Wright, John Oneil, etc. Even Michelle Malkin of all people did a wonderful pro 9/11 truth article asking tough questions in 2002

[Montag]

Have you seen the documentary Collapse? I completely understand why Rupert turned his back on "9/11 Truth". He was one of the first to point out the deep state parapolitical shenanigans swirling around the event(even giving presentations a mere two months after sept 11th), and he was warning back then about how tempting it was for people to turn it into a fiction riddled circus and focus on pointless menutia and false claim honeypots. And sure enough, by 2006 9/11 "truth" became a laughing stock dipped in "plane swaps", "missiles" and other gobbledygookery.

Rupert saw that while all the energy of the parapolitically minded was focused on half truths and dead ends, he saw the long term agenda.

I find that there is a lunatic fringe to nearly every subculture of society. Who would expect the 9/11 truth movement to be any different?

p.s. I haven't seen Collapse... Ruppert is someone I don't know a lot about. I haven't decided if he's a truth-teller or mis/disinformation guy yet, lol.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
I completely understand why Rupert turned his back on "9/11 Truth". He was one of the first to point out the deep state parapolitical shenanigans swirling around the event(even giving presentations a mere two months after sept 11th), and he was warning back then about how tempting it was for people to turn it into a fiction riddled circus and focus on pointless menutia and.....
.....

"Pointless minutia," like the undeniable physical proofs?

You missed Ruppert's 2003 follow-up apology for ERRONEOUSLY suggesting physical evidence would lead nowhere.
He did almost a complete turn-around and explained he had been totally mislead by BBC and hasty to agree that there was anything to go on, though he did try to have it almost both ways in explaing his error.
Point is he changed his viewpoint quite a bit away from the 8bitagent one.

So STOP your misdirection crap, 8bit...so predictable and consistent....few on RI put as much energy into steering us away from incontrovertible damning evidence...

Ruppert's mea culpa is two years before the 503 first-responder oral histories describing demolition and two years before Prof. Steven Jones publishes his first thermite paper-

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... nnedy.html

The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11

by Michael C. Ruppert
November 26, 2003
.....
I write this article in part to share the practical teaching experience offered by these events, to make amends, and to offer an apology.
.....
There is a mountain of physical evidence that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change.
.....
On September 13, 2001, I hurriedly published a 241-word story on the FTW web site wherein I reached the early conclusion that explosives had not been placed in the World Trade Center. At the time, I based my conclusion upon several things. They included a detailed BBC report citing scientific sources and architectural experts saying that jet fuel running down the elevator shafts had been sufficient to cause the collapse; a detailed statement by New York architect John Young (still on the web) supporting these conclusions, and statements from my ex-wife Mary, an eyewitness....
.....
My error, my failing, with regard to my story of September 13, 2001 was that I never went back to it and enhanced, explained or elaborated. I was already too absorbed in the task of exposing government lies via a different strategy in what I viewed - and still do - as a race against time. For this I apologize. My past experience with physical evidence was too painful and there had already emerged a group of wonderful researchers who had begun the fight that really mattered, the one that has made a difference, even if a small one.
.....

[thatsmystory]

I don't think there's any way in the world you can make the case that Greenwald has somehow avoided performing what you happen to perceive as a responsibility. Assange is neither a journalist nor a professional commentator. I tend to view his remark about 911 as either a display of a lack of interest in a mystery for which he can offer no clues as to its resolution, or a genuine disparagement of a subject the intricacies of which he likely understands better than either of us. But that is most likely because that interpretation fits my personal perspective.

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").

I don't understand how Greenwald could make this statement.

I agree that Assange could have several possible reasons for answering as he did. Great journalism there to ask him one brief question with no follow up.

[thatsmystory]

p.s. I haven't seen Collapse... Ruppert is someone I don't know a lot about. I haven't decided if he's a truth-teller or mis/disinformation guy yet, lol.

How would you ever know?