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

[elfismiles]

"Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange" - Belfast Telegraph
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifes ... 80073.html

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth
Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 07/22/2010 - 6:22pm

"Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange"
Belfast Telegraph, July 19, 2010

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a 'conspiracy for war', leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent "War on Terror".

In November 2009, Wikileaks released "half a million US national text pager intercepts" covering a "24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington."[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange's rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?

Perhaps it should be pointed out to Mr. Assange that former senator Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry[2] into 9/11, gave an interview to the BBC in which Graham said the following:[3]

Bob Graham: "I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."

Narrator: "Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the administration."

Bob Graham: "I called the White House and talked with Ms. Rice and said: "Look, we've been told we're gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she'd look into it and nothing happened."

Interviewer: "Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or...?"

Bob Graham: "No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current White House."

Narrator: "So it was a conspiracy to cover-up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead up to 9/11?"

Bob Graham: "If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some ... collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public's hands."

The BBC then concludes their documentary with a reassuring, paternalistic commentary explaining why this isn't something we should all be furious about. Furthermore, in 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a candid dialogue with We Are Change LA:[4]

Bob Kerrey: "It's a problem... it's a 30-year-old conspiracy"

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: "No.. I'm talking about 9/11"

Bob Kerrey: "That's what I'm talking about"

Many interpretations could be given as to what sort of conspiracy these two former senators are referring to. The BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" was an obvious hit piece against 9/11 truth, in which the BBC went out of their way to handwave all abnormalities as 'blunders', 'failures', 'mistakes' and 'cock ups'. This angle is not new, in fact, it's part of a long BBC tradition of 'limited hangouts'. Nor is it any less outrageous if it were true that these 'blunders' and 'gaffes' were deliberately covered up, as the BBC and Bob Graham allege. A criminal cover-up alone warrants criminal prosecution of the conspirators involved, and most 9/11 researchers know this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Bob Kerrey's remark could be taken to mean the covert funding and training of the Mujahideen, initiated in 1979.[5]

Nobody is asking Mr. Assange to depart from his objective role, but now that he has spoken out, he deserves a reply. In both cases, clearly the terminology used is "conspiracy" or "cover-up". Bob Graham doesn't hold back and mentions "withholding of (..) secrets", chastising the Bush administration for being unapologetic, self-serving and obstructive. So it seems that Julian Assange, as the founder and director of an organization supposedly dedicated to supporting whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing, has his work cut out for him, unless he is determined to be part of the problem. The perception management and misguided credibility building Mr. Assange seems so concerned with conflict with the stated mission of Wikleaks:[6]

"WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."

I bet whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds[7] and certainly Daniel Ellsberg[8], who is mentioned several times in the mission statement, approve. Surely, a 9/11 cover-up that "led to the heart of the administration" is worthy of Wikileaks' attention. Or is it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] "9/11 tragedy pager intercepts" — http://911.wikileaks.org/
[2] 9/11 Joint Inquiry — http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
[3] Relevant excerpt from the 2007 BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files: 9-11" — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6QLnvvyIzg/
[4] We Are Change LA: "9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey finally confesses 9-11 Commission could not do it's job"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtJWBcWAeAw#t=6m45
[5] Operation Cyclone — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
[6] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About
[7] Documentary "Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger" — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5569143497
[8] Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg together — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSbmRHqKL4

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/w ... -911-truth

[Simulist]

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

So, Julian Assange is interested in "conspiracies," just as long as those conspiracies don't get uncomfortably close to the truth.

[norton ash]

I don't know, Assange may have picked up on the reporter's 9/11 focus (note that the reporter Matthew Bell subsequently confirmed his 9/11 bias/focus through the rest of the story) and was merely trying to steer the conversation outward toward other subjects.

Some 9/11 conspiracies are indeed 'fake.' Assange's annoyance may stem from too many deep-politicos putting all their eggs in that one basket. (Or just an on-the-spot annoyance with a 9/11-obsessed reporter.)

[Montag]

Another CIA plant 'exposing' truth.

[psynapz]

So, Julian Assange is interested in "conspiracies," just as long as those conspiracies don't get uncomfortably close to the truth.

I suspect it's more an issue of mental saturation and fatigue from his necessarily intensive and self-disruptive personal security measures that has kept him from studying this. I doubt he's anybody's puppet. He's just busy.

Similarly, I'd like to think that Jon Stewart and/or Stephen Colbert would be free to break, at least once before being Told, some big ideas about 9/11 if only they had been led across the vast inferential distances required to get from covering up blunders to LIHOP or MIHOP. But that intellectual journey takes time and commitment, which neither of them have thanks to their [admittedly convenient but wholly necessary] professional lifestyle demands.

Even real newspeople. It's only the fringe reporters that have the time to study issues in enough depth to make an objective decision to even attempt to cover it. What has Carl Cameron done since the Israeli spying series? WAC caught up with him too, and he appeared busy-with-a-conscience sufficient to stop and engage them sincerely, culminating in a plea to the effect of, "What am *I* supposed to do about it?"

On the other hand, Willie Rodriguez has been pretty consistent that he was threatened sort of laterally by, he said, more than one national news reporter who warned him after he gave his interview that he had no idea who he was dealing with and he should be careful what he says. So some of them sure as hell encounter The Conspiracy directly in the course of their work, if they have unequivocal advice like that to offer.

Assange, you would think, would encounter sketchy characters who would corroborate the existence of one or another octopus bigger than the leak he's breaking at the time, but maybe not. And if not, then it's up to him to make the time to study the issue, as we all have, to come to his own conclusions as to the depths of the horrible truth by weeding out the bullshit psyops stories which probably came to his mind in response to that interview question about 9/11. You're not going to "tell" it like it is to anyone who's going to just flat-out buy it wholesale without their own research at their own pace, save of course for the exceedingly weak-minded, and they're no help.

Another CIA plant 'exposing' truth.

Never forget Assange is on a so-far successful and contagious global crusade to enact whistleblower haven laws in as many countries as possible. Can anyone explain how that's not sincere, radical and effective antifascist effort? Every whistleblower is another crack in the Damn.

[Montag]

Never forget Assange is on a so-far successful and contagious global crusade to enact whistleblower haven laws in as many countries as possible. Can anyone explain how that's not sincere, radical and effective antifascist effort? Every whistleblower is another crack in the Damn.

I must say one of the most successful psy-ops is to make people think conspiracies are for the mad and the frothing at the mouth... I was kind of joking in my comment, but we aren't talking about the British royal family being reptilian here we're talking about 9/11. I think 9/11 and JFK are the two events that have gained some credibility within the 'mainstream'. I'm beginning to see anyone who dismisses these events -- and believes what they told about them -- as missing some rather significant pieces of the puzzle.

It brings to mind Paul Craig Roberts retirement letter:

Truth Has Fallen and Has Taken Liberty With It
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100324_truth.htm

[Simulist]

So, Julian Assange is interested in "conspiracies," just as long as those conspiracies don't get uncomfortably close to the truth.

I suspect it's more an issue of mental saturation and fatigue from his necessarily intensive and self-disruptive personal security measures that has kept him from studying this. I doubt he's anybody's puppet. He's just busy.

Well, you know, when you're busy and limited on time — and you're a "whistle-blower" — you definitely want to ignore and/or denigrate the biggest and most obvious conspiracies. How else will the truth get out?

[8bitagent]

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

So, Julian Assange is interested in "conspiracies," just as long as those conspiracies don't get uncomfortably close to the truth.

Pretty much. This is the mantra and public policy of just about every left wing activist, speaker, writer, or journalist Ive ever seen/read/heard/met.

I agree one should not be taken in by false snake oil claims, which 9/11 Truth(tm) certainly is chalked full of. But as the article points out, Senator Bob Graham and others found extensive proof of
various foreign state support for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Bush administration covered this up(and continued giving billions to said foreign states) To me this is a conspiracy, and destroys the official story of "al Qaeda is an independent group". I believe truthers lost their way when they took al Qaeda and the culture of Islamic jihad out of the picture; because I believe this is precisely the vehicle the globalist agenda and elite use to carry out their strategy of tension. It doesnt matter if a jihadist is "stage managed from central spook casting" or is a virulently real committed jihadist...its all part of the hidden hand.

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. Yet this is the cartoonish meme both the truthers and media want us to focus on that brush aside the true complex nature of globalist crimes.
Islamic terrorism is the hand of the elite, so "al Qaeda did 9/11" is like saying a gun killed a rival mob boss...when the hired hand was in reality sent by a mob boss.

[8bitagent]

On the other hand, Willie Rodriguez has been pretty consistent that he was threatened sort of laterally by, he said, more than one national news reporter who warned him after he gave his interview that he had no idea who he was dealing with and he should be careful what he says. So some of them sure as hell encounter The Conspiracy directly in the course of their work, if they have unequivocal advice like that to offer.

I always felt the PTB *WANTED* people to focus on the "controlled demolition" stuff. I mean, shoot, whenever National Geographic/BBC/Discovery Channel/etc does a 2 hour special "confronting the 9/11 theories", ITS ALWAYS on the god damn tower stuff(or pentagon/flight 93 stuff)

As far as the Israeli spy and white van stuff, interesting both Fox and Counterpunch did extensive coverage of it.

[DrVolin]

I tend to be more annoyed by 911 lies.

[Joe Hillshoist]

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.

[Simulist]

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.

He didn't say he was "annoyed by 9/11 truth," he said this: "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11."

That's different.

Like you, I'm "annoyed by 9/11 truth" also — but Assange isn't saying just that: he is saying that 9/11 itself constitutes a "false conspiracy."

That's a horse of a very different color — and this is an extremely troubling thing for someone to say who is being accorded respect as a trusted authority on real conspiracies and as an honest source of whistled-blower information concerning them.

[8bitagent]

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

Somehow I am not convinced such documents exist. Then again I'm not convinced of US involvement, given the US seems so convinced and paranoid of the "al Qaeda threat". I now wonder if perhaps both the US and militant jihad got punk'd.

[8bitagent]

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.

He didn't say he was "annoyed by 9/11 truth," he said this: "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11."

That's different.

Like you, I'm "annoyed by 9/11 truth" also — but Assange isn't saying just that: he is saying that 9/11 itself constitutes a "false conspiracy."

That's a horse of a very different color — and this is an extremely troubling thing for someone to say who is being accorded respect as a trusted authority on real conspiracies and as an honest source of whistled-blower information concerning them.

Perhaps he is unaware of the definition of conspiracy:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

If he believes, like most people, that evil Muslims in a cave did 9/11...then its STILL a conspiracy.

How come noone convinced of the official theory is curious where the money came from, or how it was pulled off?

Its like people who believe in God or Christ...you grow up being told of something, yet never want to examine it for yourself.

[Montag]

Being 'annoyed' by a conspiracy is another way of saying, "Look away, look away, nothing to see here." In other words something someone says when they cannot refute another's argument and are either a disinformation person or are too stupid or lazy to examine the evidence.