Support 911Blogger


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

"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."

Interviewer: "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 Wikileaks:[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] Wikileaks mission statement — http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About

[7] Documentary "Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger" — http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497

[8] Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg together — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aSbmRHqKL4

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"

could wikileaks be a limited hangout?

If he can't see the 911 conspiracy, which is blatantly obvious, I have concerns.

I suspect that wikileaks is a limited hangout.

Limited hangout or CIA front.

Cryptome.org founder, Wikileaks co-founder and architect John Young has raised some serious concerns about Wikileaks:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

I would put good money on it being a CIA front.

When were the twin towers constructed?

Let's see, since Google is my friend..

Started 1966, the first tower opened in 1970, the second in 1972

That would make it a 30 conspiracy then, if he was referring to the twin towers, as if built by Rockefellers, with the end in mind..

just a thought..

Jeremy strikes again. Man he's great!

Trying to interpret

Trying to interpret Kerrey's comment has come up on this blog before. He made the remark a year or so ago, so the 30 years may have been a reference to the late '70s--which, among other things, was when the CIA began organizing the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and US policymakers in general were becoming more anxious about the need to strengthen its military presence in that region over the long-term. He may have been thinking along those lines.

Of course

who can say what he might have been referring to. I understand.

Your comment reminds me of the film "The Power of Nightmares", ever see it?

Me I've always felt that something fundamental went haywire when JFK was assassinated, and that that event led to an alternative history through which the Bush crime family rose to power, much like a branch of history hacked away, and a new one grafted in in its place.

Either way, these things do cut to the very heart of American life, and they're not good.

I think the same documentarian who did the power of nightmares, also made another film on the rise of advertising via think tanks designed to craft methods for all manner of psychological warfare, like the Tavistock Institute for example. The "mass-man" - created by design as the very infrastructure and framework through which the elite 'catalyze' and direct and bend history in favour of the type of global conspiracy JFK warned about..

Sorry for going off topic.

"The Century of the Self" ADAM CURTIS

Help me find USAF officer who imagined 9/11 high-jacking story!

Some elements of this massive psychological warfare operation on the US public, and the World at large originated already way back in the 1930ies! MacWhite wrote a very good text on "Television and the Hive Mind" http://www.mackwhite.com/tv.html . Cheney and Rumsfeld worked on the small text of the "Continuity of Government Plan" that went into effect at 11 AM on Sept 11th 2001, already during 20 years BEFORE Cheney became Vice President, and Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense. Remember also the US Air-force soldier who became infuriated when he realized the Psy-Ops had used HIS PLAN, that he had devised 20 years before, when he was stationed in Wiesbaden, Germany. Conceived as a hypothetical terrorist attack at the time, where terrorists would use box-cutters to take over the plane, and the do a Kamikaze strike on an important building, the Air-Force officer immediately understood that the plan could easily be turned into a "False Flag" operation, and, in a very unusual move, demanded guarantees from the Military that HIS PLAN would never be put into application by the US forces. That is why he became furious after September 11th 2001! This all sounds all a bit far stretched, but as I recall it, it was very much talked in the 9/11 Truth community a couple of years after Sept. 11th 2001. 9 years later, I tried to find links to this story, but so far, my search has failed. Are there other 9/11 historians out there who can track down this story, that also must have been run on 911Blogger?
Of-course it was at-least 30 years in the making: Kerry was absolutely right, but it is a close nit group of (criminal) actors, including the likes of Philip Zelikow who played an important part in the cover-up.
Track down who is doing the very active covering-up, and you will find the perpetrators.
Every media today, every University who cannot manage to understand that the WTC towers I, II & VII were taken down by pre-planted explosives, these are either totally unreliable sources of knowledge, or are guilty of not reporting the treasonous acts of elements within the highest echelons of our "security" apparatus.
For every day that goes in the infamy of their ignorance or treason, they should be severely shamed!

Perhaps the COG plan you point out

could have been the 30 year old conspiracy event kerrey talked about.

I wouldn't go too hard on Mr.

I wouldn't go too hard on Mr. Assange here. He's doing dangerous and important work. He evidently hasn't traveled down the rabbit hole deep enough. Maybe his friends should point him towards this web site or http://Visibility911.com or http://ae911truth.org
or http://russbaker.com

And he should check out David Chandler's work at http://911speakout.org

Give the guy some useful information rather than
negative vibes.

I beg to disagree!

I must say I disagree most vehemently with your suggestion that we go easy on Mr. Assange, as if he were some academic lost in the clouds who needs gentle encouragement.

Julian Assange specialises in leaking explosive information on highly sensitive topics that are suppressed in the news. He has NO EXCUSE not to know about the myriad of facts which contradict the official 9/11 story.

I'm quite disgusted to find that he is propping the most egregious lie of our age.

Sorry, but I'll go hard. If this report is correct (and it may not be of course) then this guy is clearly controlled & clearly a fake. This would be very disappointing to me.

I second that..

We can't be easy on someone of his position who apparently owes his fame to the acknowledment of conspiracies and lying and providing a method for those conspiracies and lies to be exposed. By making a statement like he did about 9/11 truth, he prevents anyone who DOES have inside information on 9/11 from giving it to him since they now know he won't believe them. The first time Assange showed up on MSM TV, I had a sneaking suspicion about this guy. He isn't going to leak ANYTHING the CIA doesn't want him to. He is just another propaganda tool. Was it Stalin who said "the best way to control the opposition is to be it?"

Our best weapon is an educated public. I still like the idea of 9/11 science fairs.

peace all

dtg

Ok...so what are you going to

Ok...so what are you going to do with your vehemence? Blog here till you're blue in the face? Have you tried sending Mr. Assange a letter presenting him with the best information our movement has to offer? Jones, Griffin, Gage, Chandler, Monahan, Wolsey, Ryan, Harrit to name a few? If you present him with harsh condemnation at first take, just how receptive do you think he'll be at listening to our best? Where's your action plan?

I think I was there when Bell questioned “What about 9/11?" !

On June 21st I met Julian Assange at a seminar organized by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. He was a bit jet-lagged after just flying in from Sydney, but still seemed like an easy-going cosmopolitan traveler. He was standing in the entrance of the European Parliament in the company of a very special and likable politician – Icelandic poet and artist, former Punk-singer now Icelandic Parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir ( http://joyb.blogspot.com )

I noted that Julian Assange was well versed in the security passes needed to get into certain meetings of the European Parliament. I believe it was during the press conference for the seminar " (self)+censorship;+new+challenges+for+freedom+of+expression+in+Europe " that Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell had the chance to ask him that question. I had slipped in to this press conference almost by accident, as I was early for the hearing that was about to take place. I remember the question, and it is funny that at the time, the answer to the question “What about 9/11” didn’t shock me more than it did, when he answered it cautiously. The quote from the Belfast Telegraph reporter could be a journalist’s short-hand of Assange’s answer. As I recall it, he tip-toed around the question, indeed saying that there were many established facts about government lying that WikiLeaks could contribute, showing black-on white how we are manipulated into war and mass financial fraud. I do not recall Assange using the words: “false conspiracies such as 9/11” because that would have profoundly revolted me.

This being said, I do not have the audio of the press conference: it should be available somewhere. It is possible that I could have repressed hearing such an absurdity from Assange’s mouth. Now that I think back about it, it could be he said “un-proven theories”, and already that IS bad enough!

Both he and Birgitta Jonsdottir were like hero’s to me, but I agree entirely that, after 9 years of serious citizen investigation, like that done by www.911Truth.org or www.911Blogger.com , the issue of 9/11 IS the ultimate litmus test to see if a journalist / politician is informed, and working for a better understanding of reality, or a victim/perpertrator of the Mighty Wurlitzer supidification meme that high-rises pulverize with their occupants in New-York due to barbaric Muslims high-jacking airplanes with box-cutters.

As a participant citizen in a hearing entitled: "(self) censorship; new challenges for freedom of expression in Europe" //www.alde.eu/en/details/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=23424&cHash=137ca875fb fumbling a bit awkwardly to find the right words, I tried to steer the discussion to the issue of 9/11 : see my own intervention at 2 hours 26 min on this video link of the full seminar: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdsqw8_alev-full-freedom-of-expression-in_news ( watch at 2:26:00 ).

I will send this link to Birgitta Jonsdottir, who is still a hero to me, even if I do not recall any of her thoughts on September 11th 2001. How many sitting politicians do you know who write poems like this: Cry from the Heart

Birgitta Jonsdottir would be as inspiring as Cynthia Mc Kinney to me if she also gave full support to the WeAreChange 911Truth Citizen movement of the World. I believe she hasn’t arrived there yet, because she lives in a Scandinavian “duck-pond” mentality where people just don’t do such dastardly things as a psychological ware-fare operations killing 3000 of its own citizens to put the country in a State of Emergency due to “external attack”, and implement a phony “War on Terrorism”.

Julian Assange, with a broader back-ground in government lies, should know better: he should come clear about any remark he would have done implying that September 11th 2001 being a government inside job “is not proven”. It is clearly proven by peer-reviewed scientific journals proving the use of tons of expensive Pentagon High-Tech sol-gel-nano-thermate, and the collective scientific opinion as expressed by more than 1200 architects and engineers on the excellent site of www.AE911Truth.org

I still tend to believe Assange is passionate about his work, but if you’re out to leak some essential documents, there is no need to only go via WikiLeaks. The Icelandic Media Initiative is on a good way towards realization, and the Swedish Pirate party is also setting up a site with Parliamentary immunity and secrecy to ensure that the internet stays a source of information and freedom of expression and thought.

Best regards from Brussels, Belgium,

Dr Eric Beeth

http://patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html#Beeth

"The Icelandic Media

"The Icelandic Media Initiative is on a good way towards realization, and the Swedish Pirate party is also setting up a site with Parliamentary immunity and secrecy to ensure that the internet stays a source of information and freedom of expression and thought. "

That's great news Dr. Beeth

Can you write more about that?

John

I spoke too early: Only WikyLeaks is currently up and running.

The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (1 year from completion) has more substance and philosophy than the Swedish Pirate Party Initiative (only local beta version running in the University town of Lund), but it’s good to see a multi-thronged drive to protect from “Big Brother’s” all the more prying eyes through efforts like DARPA’s TIA program : http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/qa-pentagons-total-information-awareness-program .

Here's a good link on : The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative : //www.immi.is/?l=en

The Pirate Party says : "Terrorists may attack the open society, but only governments can abolish it." http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english Here is the first link I stumbled on concerning their "Log-Free-ISP" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/swedish-pirate-party-launches-anonymous-log-free-isp.ars

Note to editors : working from another computer, I wanted to edit the invented word “Mighty Wurlitzer supidification meme” to “Mighty Wurlitzer stupidification meme” in my comment above, but it didn’t’ work. If possible, please correct!

Eric

Confirmation of Julian Assange's comment?

Very interesting post Dr Beeth. I believe it is crucial to obtain confirmation of Julian Assange's exact comments.

In the Belfast Telegraph article, the journalist, Matthew Bell, states that he spoke to Julian Assange after his talk at the Centre for Investigative Journalism at the University of London on the weekend of 9 to 11 July 2010.

However, I still find Dr Beeth's comment about Mr Assange's cautious remarks on 9/11 two weeks earlier very interesting:

"I remember the question, and it is funny that at the time, the answer to the question “What about 9/11” didn’t shock me more than it did, when he answered it cautiously. The quote from the Belfast Telegraph reporter could be a journalist’s short-hand of Assange’s answer. As I recall it, he tip-toed around the question, indeed saying that there were many established facts about government lying that WikiLeaks could contribute, showing black-on white how we are manipulated into war and mass financial fraud. I do not recall Assange using the words: “false conspiracies such as 9/11” because that would have profoundly revolted me."

Was Julian Assange misquoted? First prize to whoever can obtain confirmation of this quote.

How Julian Assange views September 11th 2001.

Dear Naomi and fellow truth-tellers and truth-seekers,

If I were to adventure a "diagnosis" of how Julian Assange views September 11th 2001, based on a very brief meeting, and what I've been able to piece together, then it would be something like this:

Apparently, he views it like an intellectual who made up his mind about the matter early-on, and has not been showing signs of budging his opinion, even post-publication of the Niels Harrit Nano-thermate papers, the DVD's put out by AE911Truth, or the American Behavioral Psychologist publication of the SCAD papers in its February 2010 issue. He is caught in the "Monbiot" or "Chomsky" mindset, who both seem to believe that JFK was murdered by a lone nut-case, and that, according to them, other theories of high ranking secret government involvement in the killing of the elected US President are fruitless "conspiracy theories". These distinguished intellectuals take exactly the same attitude towards any proof of high ranking secret government involvement in the killing of 3000 American citizens on September 11th 2001.

These types of intellectuals are comforted in this mind-set, and they would probably feel quite destabilized to discover that they have been wrong all this time.

All that Chomsky, Monbiot and Assange say and do is not in-validated by this error of perception, but it is quite un-nerving to watch them prance around proposing to help others to clear the grain of dust out of their eyes, while they do not realize that they are walking around with a log in their own eye.

Unfortunately, 9 years after the treasonous acts of 9/11, a lot of intellectuals are still firmly hiding the plain truth from their eyes, by firmly tying the main-stream curtain of lies in front of their eyes, and continuing to waltz about taking themselves very seriously. I know and appreciate very many of these people, but I often have difficulty discussing truly serious matters with them, because of their fear to tread the deep waters of proof of very large scale State Crimes Against Democracy still alive and kicking because of deaf and blind intellectuals like themselves.

I hope and pray that all those who do understand the nature of the threat of not addressing the criminals behind the recently committed SCADs will make haste to make more people understand, and act to guarantee that our society keep it's basis in decency and justice. I am convinced that the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative is firmly on this course, and people working within WikiLeaks are committed to guaranteeing a more free flowing of information, in an information society that is under an enemy attack of authoritarian elements within our society, who desire to reign in the free sharing of thought and information, to better control "the masses".

It is quite surprising to hear the director of WikiLeaks refer to the 1200 architects and engineers who expose the proof of controlled demolition of the WTC I, II & VII as if they were on to a "false conspiracy", but the same surprise comes unfortunately still today from many so-called intellectuals, like university professors and other nerds. Today, I have it from a good source that several of the core members of WikiLeaks are not at all naive about the findings of the world wide Citizen's forensic investigation into what happened on September 11th 2001. I will leave it to each of these precious members to come out in public about their findings concerning 9/11 Truth. Knowing how stubborn some intellectuals like Monbiot or Chomsky can be, I'm not expecting Julian Assange to become a 9/11 Truther until 90% of the intellectuals around him have become more conscious about the facts proving that 9/11 was a State Crime Against Democracy, as well as the most bold operation of psychological warfare ever attempted on a global television dumbfounded populace.

I would like to thank each one of you, 9/11 Truther or not, if you are on the same path to bring about more decency and access to truth in our society.

In particular, I'd like to thank every person who sacrifices of his energy and time to guarantee a free flow of-information, and a better understanding of the realities that confront our society today, in a matter of-fact way, without sugar coating or trying to put a Mighty Wurlitzer spin on this very important information flow!

Thank-you especially to the community of bloggers !

Dr Eric Beeth

http://patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html#Beeth

I would suggest he needs to be approached WAC style

... and the video posted. - similar to the Amy Goodman WAC confrontations

Of course it would be preferable to interview him in a mutually satisfactory manner, but it doesn;t look like that is on the cards. Sending him information seems a bit pointless.

Actually I would start by just getting him to clarify his comment - it's quite likely he was deliberately mis-quoted by Matthew Bell.

I am going to start the ball rolling and send him an email asking for clarification - as a fellow Australian truth seeker.

manipulation psychology of Julian Assange?

If you were Julian Assange and already had a big fat [encrypted] file on 9/11, and were asked about 911 publicly, would you tip your hand (wanting an ace) to those who prefer obfuscation? Suppose he has some evidence but not the whole picture yet. It is to his great advantage to pooh-pooh 911 truth seekers. Thus he is more likely to be contacted by those with evidence who yearn for the facts to be presented. Voicing doubts about the publicly accepted story of 911 would elicit the opposite result: What individual with information would wish to stick his neck out by providing evidence if Assange suggests he may already have it? Mr. Assange must be very aware of the peril of speaking too soon, and the advantage of portraying himself as ill-informed.

Irony

When digging around looking for contact info for Julian Assange, I stumbled across a quote from him suggesting "You can’t publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results." Of course not only could Bazant publish his papers on the destruction of the towers without providing any experimental data at all, but his hypothesis stands in flagrant violation of the laws of physics, and easily debunked by simple experiments such as those done by Jon Cole.

Unfortunately, I've wasn't able to find a personal email adress for him, so I settled for emailing the WikiLeaks office.

Hypothesis:

Perhaps Wikileaks is the mother-of-all limited hangouts, in that they will reveal seriously damaging evidence, however they are very selective with this evidence for damage control. For instance, with the 'collateral murder' video leak, the general reaction was anger towards our ignorant and brainwashed men in uniform instead of at the willfully evil men in suits who killed us, lied to us about it, then shipped our men over in the first place.

Wikileaks comes away looking like a saint, while further dividing We the People, by design.

Given Assange's reaction, I can only assume he is playing his role as gatekeeper, or needs a weekend visit from Harrit & Gage...

Strange

I was just thinking about the wiwleaks founder and what he might have receieved regardfing 9/11, and why he might withold on that particular issue.

He said he's sitting on "explosive" stuff, and I was hoping that might be revelations about 9/11, for which I am CERTAIN he must have recieved something or more than something along the way.

What a sell out.

How does he deny the laws of physics? That's the part I don't get. He's a smart guy. He knows - but is here cowtowing to the sacred cow of the elite agenda. Strange, and shameful.

He'll be getting a dose of the truth I'm pretty sure now..

What better way to catch

What better way to catch whistle blowers & contain leaks than to secretly become THE ' place you can trust ' to reveal the secrets to the world? Of course ,it would be necessary to expose some small potato scandals (easily fixed by rolling a few low level heads) in order to maintain your reputation,but they could then be pointed to as evidence that your legit. 911 is my litmus test & he fails. I predict Wikileaks will NEVER report anything other than small,easily fixed 'scandals'. Anyone who 'leaked' anything big or important to them would disappear & you'd never hear about. It sort of looks like a sting operation to me. Just my opinion.

yes, 9/11 is the litmus test...

. . . and this bloke fails miserably. another gatekeeper revelaed

Limited Hangout...most likely...but

Hey all, this is a great thread...

That we are good enough to be reasonable as we consider that Asange is most likely a limited hangout, and also most likely operating with a gun to his head because of his organization being "conveniently supplied with incriminating videos and other forms of classified? information" and further, most likely infiltrated as most of our organizations are, is a very BIG compliment to the 9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice Community.

This 9/11 story is FAR from over...so lets just keep moving towards the TRUTH.

Seems the HI PERPS have alotta problems with this "Truthy Thing".

9/11 Truth for World peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Penta

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers/ NOW ON DVD
http://www.mostdangerousman.org/

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-21/most-dangerous-man-america-daniel-...

whatever

deleted

Stay calm!

I think we should take Assange's comments here with a pinch of salt. He strikes me as someone who has learned to be very cautious about what he reveals of himself to other people. If Assange has suspicions about the official 9/11 story, I really doubt he would admit this to someone he has never met before, such as a journalist from a major newspaper. So I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt over this.

Sounds Just Like Chomsky-Biggest Fraud Out There!

"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."

Here is the video accompanying the Belfast Telegraph article:

Thanks for posting the video.

He appeared to be genuine to me, however I would like to get the reaction and analysis from a body language expert or similar professional. I am certainly disappointed about the 911 comment which I did not hear in the above video. It's easy to underestimate the numbers of people who still have never heard of WTC7. I am shocked by the fact that there are still so many people who are politically aware and even conspiracy minded who are simply unaware of the 911 issues. I would like some specific infomation on what official leaks we would have expected him to publish at this time. While we do have a great many disturbing facts it's not like the demo plans for the towers would still be sitting around someplace would they?

taboo

Important to acknowledge that 9/11 malfeasance has been rendered a societal taboo. So much so that even people like Assange or Chomsky eschew it.

Granted, one can suspect they are 'limited hangouts'. But engagement on facts will highlight their shortcomings for rejecting the evidence of 9/11 malfeasance, regardless of their motives for doing so.

It think it is also important to acknowledge that there are two 'levels' of facts which may resonate or be rejected independently.

1) The objective, factual dissertations of Gage, Griffin, Jones, Harret, et al are the best technical arguments. There is no way to escape 9/11 malfeasance with these arguments eg somebody aided in buildings' destruction, and this may be what Assange rejects.

2) Questions or doubts expressed by political or institutional figures such as Bob Graham, 9/11 co-chairs, Sibel Edmonds, et al which hint at variety of hidden events that may be less nefarious than destroying buildings eg hiding evidence of incompetence, or willful ignorance of/aiding in impending 9/11 attacks etc. It is much less difficult to see how Assange can reject these. It is right up his alley.

In this case it may be useful to engage Assange on the second level. In my mind, one doesn't need to immediately acknowledge the first level. Exposing level two, leads eventually, to level one, and may be a necessary first step to breaking taboo.

Actually . . .

>>1) The objective, factual dissertations of Gage, Griffin, Jones, Harret, et al are the best technical arguments.

Almost. Griffin makes many good objective, factual dissertations but the cells phone calls and the voice morphing claims are not scientific, unfortunately.

For example the description below shows one way the calls could have been made, relatively easily, between the family members and the victims.

It's common sense that the phone calls may have served several positive roles for the crime, such as to preserve the idea of "last good-byes" for the emotional effect, and to provide clues to help cement the evidence for the hijackers and their behaviors. There is no reason that real hijackers, real passengers, real planes and real phones -- with the use of repeaters on board -- could not have been used, with the entire operation still being a controlled false flag to start a war.

The Cell Phone Repeater Hypothesis
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

To review, the main argument used to support the theory that the cell phone calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers were faked goes like this:

Given that several calls from the jetliner when at altitude were reportedly from cell phones; and that cell phone calls on a plane above 10,000 feet cannot communicate with ground cell stations; it follows that the reported calls were not made by the victims but were faked.

A fatal flaw in this syllogism is exposed by the following simple hypothesis, apparently first published on this page in June of 2009.

HYPOTHESIS:
A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time.

Besides being technically straightforward, this method would have afforded the attack planners great benefits with little risk of exposure. Genuine reports of the theatrics of the red-bandanna-wearing bomb-displaying Arabic-looking patsies aboard Flight 93 could be allowed to get through as long as the operatives wanted, adding realism to the hijackings so central to the official account. But the same operatives could "cut the feed" at the moment events took a turn threatening to evince something other than that account.

Some of you may remember the last time

this guy was the subject here. I said my gut feeling was that he was just the frontman for a deep state cover team.

I got a lot of flack. Maybe now "Camusrebel's gut feelings" will be given a little benefit of the doubt.

I used terms of endearment like "assclown" and I think maybe "asshat". I did not go with one that tempted me..."assmunch". I'm not especially proud of my middle school attempts at humor, but I stand by the sentiments. He is NOT a founder of WLeaks. That took a lot of $(Soros? Mossad? Lanngley?) and this ass(fill in your favorite) was a broke, busted hacker. Albeit a very talented hacker. Other hackers that were busted for similar top level break-ins have done time. He did no time.

I did mention the possibility that WLeaks had gotten some 911 whistleblower gold but buried it and that maybe the leaker was quietly disappeared.

Still pure speculation but now rings even more true.

The whole comparison to Daniel Ellsberg is, I think, quite telling as when one looks into DE and his motives for outing the PPapers, CIA ties and motives are all over it.

no hero

Oui camusrebel....he (JA) & DE are not heros at all.
You have to really dig deep these days, to find out what's real...in the TM too.
So many 'ops'....so little time for the cia to complete them all.

i remember, camusrebel

and you may recall that my issue was not with the questions or criticism you raised, which I noted were valid; it was your making accusations that he's a shill based on no evidence other than your "gut feeling", and your use of insults; what you term here as "middle school attempts at humor," and which you've continued here by saying "this ass(fill in your favorite)" You've admitted here and there this was not helpful; really, as doing this detracts from your own claims, it seems you'd do well to refrain from insults and accusations, and stick to providing evidence and reasoned arguments to back up your claims and speculation.

On Assange and Wikileaks:
This statement by Assange reveals that, at a minimum, he's clueless about 9/11 and the larger issues of state control of info and manipulation of public opinion; he calls "9/11" a "false conspirac[y]", when if he's who he says he is, he's not in a position to know if what we've been told is true or not. If he'd been paying a minimum amount of attention to the official 9/11 investigations, he'd know they left many important issues untouched, and that there are numerous conflicts and incidents which give the appearance of a cover up, and that many of the most important records have not been made public.

If he'd spent any time examining the independent research on 9/11 and the official investigations, he'd know there's a great deal of evidence for which the most reasonable explanation is that insider elements played a role in 9/11. Furthermore, he would know there are many, many theories circulated about 9/11 and related events; so which "conspiracy [theory]" is he referring to as "false" with his blanket handwave dismissal of what, in many cases, are legitimate questions and concerns?

And as SnowCrash pointed out, "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"." Given Assange's alleged concern with exposing state crimes, particularly those by the US, and his experience/knowledge in this area, it seems 'incredible' that Assange is so obtuse and naive that he would simply rule out the possibility that 9/11 involved a conspiracy deeper than that revealed by investigations conducted and controlled by Establishment insiders.

If he's simply unsure of what's is and isn't true about 9/11, he could keep quiet- but he chose to make a positive assertion, a de facto endorsement of the OCT and a denigration of independent 9/11 inquiry. Admittedly, the public image of the 9/11 Truth Movement has been tarnished by people, innocently or not, promoting misinfo and speculation as fact- but this isn't grounds for accepting the OCT, and dismissing the very many valid questions and credible evidence, which he effectively did with his statement.

Another obvious possibility is that Assange is a shill and wikileaks is a honeypot. In any case, whatever his reason for making the statement about 9/11, he's proven that he's not objective or reasonable, and I personally don't trust his judgment- at all. Anyone seeking to blow the whistle should find another avenue. People should still monitor what goes on w/ wikileaks- if it's not a honeypot, useful info may come out of it, and if hard evidence emerges that it is a honeypot, the public needs to know that as well.

Misleading

"People should still monitor what goes on w/ wikileaks- if it's not a honeypot, useful info may come out of it...."

While strictly true, this is very misleading. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of 'honeypot' - the whole point is that they must be seen to contain information or resources of value, at least on some superficial level - that's how they work.

id - "While strictly true, this is very misleading"

influence device, what have i said that's misleading; please elaborate; as you said, "the meaning of 'honeypot' - the whole point is that they must be seen to contain information or resources of value, at least on some superficial level - that's how they work."

If potential whistleblowers perceive wikileaks as being what it claims to be, i.e. a safe place for them to anonymously submit records which get published, thereby making wikileaks a container of "information or resources of value", and the reality is that it is a scam designed to entrap whistleblowers, would it not be "strictly true" that it's a honeypot?

And if Assange is what he claims- and he's simply unbelievable dense on this issue- then useful info may come of wikileaks- Assange might eventually get a clue.

And even if Assange is a shill and wikileaks is a honeypot, real records- of value in exposing state crimes may get published on the site- if only as a lure, as a way of building credibility for the site.

So, what exactly did you mean by characterizing my comment as "very misleading"?

...

"..would it not be "strictly true" that it's a honeypot?"

Yes, and I think it obviously is, amongst other things. I was referring to what I quoted though, which I also think is "strictly true".

"And if Assange is what he claims- and he's simply unbelievable dense on this issue- then useful info may come of wikileaks- Assange might eventually get a clue."

Yes, but useful information may come out of Wikileaks whether or not Assange has a clue, or ever gets one.

"And even if Assange is a shill and wikileaks is a honeypot, real records- of value in exposing state crimes may get published on the site- if only as a lure, as a way of building credibility for the site. "

Yes.

"So, what exactly did you mean by characterizing my comment as "very misleading"?"

To say "if it's not a honeypot, useful info may come out of it" is misleading when "if it's a honeypot, useful info may come out of it", especially because this is the very method by which 'honeypots' fool the naive.

i remember

Why not just upload useful information somewhere anonymously or leave/mail physical copies around? Wikileaks is obviously a honeypot, and Assange some kind of new media mockingbird asset.

Do you have any details on what his earlier brush with the law actually involved?

Maybe you're right, camusrebel,

and let's not forget past cases like W.T. or J.F.

Assange was supposed to be working on something 'really BIG' over the last month or 2, so we'll have a better idea of him if that comes out. Until then, I would now be careful giving him anything big, if I had it.

But 9/11 makes a great litmus test indeed.

DE motives. . .

. . . questioned and examined here http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine03082003.html

Please consider this

miscue

miscue

I remember your comment.

After reading Assange's alleged position on 911, I tend to believe you are probably right.

As I read in an earlier comment, I, too, have noticed that we hear a whole lot more hype about wikileaks than we hear actual important leaked information.

Someone please

if possible, ad these thoughts, questions, to a wiki-page - preferably http://wikileaks.org/ ...

Thanks.

Interesting piece. It would be nice to know what his reservations are, what he sees as the conspiracies. Most people who see the "conspiracists" as "nuts" or crazy will respond with things like, "they don't even think real planes were used," or as one person said to me, "they think Hitler's brother did 9/11", off the wall stuff.

That's why it's so important to pull out the strong stuff for those who have latched onto false impressions.

The Feds are hanging around at conferences where he's supposed to speak, trying to catch him. I tend to doubt wikileaks is a limited hang-out. This is just the average response of the average person, and if he chooses, then, to filter out "conspiratorial nonsense", that's just another area we've lost to the dis- and mis-info campaigns by both the Bush Admin and the no-anything advocates -- "conspiracy theorists" on the one hand, and "no planes, no passengers, no hijackers" on the other.

Any average person will steer clear of those and it's an uphill battle to re-learn history once they've gotten those ideas into their heads.

Proportions

I've noticed a high proportion of your own posts involve 'fake planes' or Hitler/Jew related stuff.

"The Feds are hanging around at conferences where he's supposed to speak, trying to catch him."

Really?? What does he do, outrun them and jump in a getaway car? Maybe he just transmits himself to Iceland through the modem?

Good catch influence device, I had the exact same

reaction when I read Vics sentence, "The Feds..."

How does he know who is after whom? MSM? Maybe there is a trap door under the drum kit, maybe it's more like a "beam me up Scottie" type deal.
Maybe he utilizes the cloak of invisibility.

All seriousness aside. The "story" pedaled in the lamestream is that yes the dastardly Feds are hot on his trail....but our hero is smart enough to not show up.
Curses, foiled again.

Of course there were planes Vic, Hitler was on one, Judy Wood told me it is the only explanation that makes sense.

Feds

>>Really?? What does he do, outrun them and jump in a getaway car? Maybe he just transmits himself to Iceland through the modem?

They are not attempting to arrest him, they apparently want to question him, so he is avoiding the US.

It's not rocket science.

...

"They are not attempting to arrest him."

Who said they were? I was responding to your claim they were 'trying to catch him'.

So they are 'apparently' turning up where he's supposed to speak and he's not even in the country? How incompetent!

Thank you Victoria

and I agree. No planes, no passengers, no hijackers, these theories have little to no basis and supply our opponents with attack vectors. I'm well aware of DRG's implied case for 100% government orchestration but I disagree with him. I think two conspiracies converged on 9/11, one by Al Qaeda, and one by the US government who was monitoring and manipulating them. I understand there are strong disagreements within the movement about this subject, and unfortunately those of us who don't go along with the no hijackers theories are often attacked. Al Qaeda's trainer, Ali Mohamed, was a quadruple agent (CIA, FBI, Special Forces, Al Qaeda), and I feel that too little attention is given to the double agent phenomenon. Who was infiltrating who?

And I would like to point out that I'm mainly concerned with the incongruity between Assange's choice of words and the terminology used by Graham and Kerrey, both insiders of government run investigations into 9/11. Kerrey obviously knows a lot more than he lets on. Notice how quickly he leaves after he says what he's so reluctant to say. Kerrey may have given us a hint: start your research into 9/11 at Operation Cyclone. I think Jeremy just wore him down and he decided to concede this much.

Kerrey and Graham's words blow any notion of 9/11 being anything else but a 'conspiracy' out of the water. The question is thus, not IF 9/11 was a conspiracy, but WHAT KIND of conspiracy. So, regardless of the various running theories about 9/11, it most certainly is a government conspiracy, regardless of, and separate from, Al Qaeda's conspiracy to attack the United States. The 9/11 truth movement is just trying to work out those "secrets" which Bob Graham says the White House is "withholding". Some of these secrets obviously go beyond 'incompetence', into the realm of criminal complicity. Certainly by now we can say it has been factually established that there was a criminal cover-up of 9/11. The work of people like you and Jim, prof. Jones, Kevin Ryan (my favorite 9/11 whistleblower), AE911Truth et al. is ongoing, and is even more damning, suggesting direct and targeted government complicity in mass murder.

Somebody else in this thread said Assange, by his choice of words, discourages 9/11 whistleblowers to come forward. I agree. As for Assange's motivations: who is to know. I suspect he's simply overly concerned with credibility issues, fearing attacks from the mainstream media, which are on his side now, but only time will tell.

Time will tell!

Good questions all around. The jury is still out in my opinion. One thing is for sure once he does mention 911 truth in an objective light there will be no more invites to NPR. If he cultivates his reputation with a few more big stories and then comes forward with 911 truth that would be better. I personally am not convinced that he has looked at the issue to any great extent. I broke the truth bottle open today with a business associate who I have listened to complain about the govt. for the past few years. He almost flipped out when I said I didn't believe the OCT! After about 45 minutes of further discussion he still could not get his mind around it. And here's a guy who knows that politics is really corrupt. In the end after another 45 minutes or so he started to really consider what I was saying and said he would be fighting mad if this could be true. I assured him I didn't believe it when someone first told me about it and it took some time for me to research and accept the fact that in his words " this level of evil could exist with people in power in our country."

No Good Spin For This

There are some reasonable defenses for this guy ... but I really do not think they stand up to scrutiny and analysis.

And here's why. First, what reputation is this guy protecting? I heard Wikileaks discussed on NPR, which is MSM, but this guy does not seek and is not getting MSM personal attention. And the fact Wiki is discussed on MSM does not bespeak well of it - if it is genuine and honorable. Whistleblowers are not well treated by MSM. Just follow Sibel Edmond's story and her work on the subject for that.

Second, you don't need to ridicule 9/11 like he did, in order to distance yourself enough not to be tainted. Even some politicians know how to finesse the subject. This guy is not a politician, and so why is he acting like one? How can someone like him - someone who has fundamental access to government corruption and conspiracies - be so over-the-top blind to this one.

Third, you have to understand something about the government recording all our phone calls, email and banking transactions. Once the government has that info ... it's not necessarily that easy to use it. To use that info against normal people (instead of the "terrorists"), you need to explain how it is you legally obtained it. Look at Spitzer for example - they had to jump through all kinds of hoops to tarnish him with info that he was doing hookers, which was illegally acquired.

One of the main ways you control politicians (or even military or civilians) is through blackmail. But it can be tough for the government to threaten blackmail through normal channels, and so Wikileaks could serve as a clearinghouse for embarrassing info that the Powers want to leak or theaten to leak. It's analogous to money-laundering illegal cash. Instead you are info-laundering illegal info by running it through a group like Wiki. If it's leaked to a third-party by an anonymous whistleblower - it's fair game in court. And usually you do not need to use it -- just threaten to use it.

I agree with those who conclude that this looks bad for Wiki. I think this is a major red flag.

Different size conspiracies, different control, etc

>>This guy is not a politician, and so why is he acting like one? How can someone like him - someone who has fundamental access to government corruption and conspiracies - be so over-the-top blind to this one.

That's a good point, but I think that 9/11 was really significantly different than the various smaller if not just as murderous cover-ups that go on in wars.

Remember, 9/11 could have been carried out virtually entirely by a small number of insiders.

A war has thousands and thousands of participants and the scenes are often not nearly as controlled as they were on 9/11, with the Pentagon officials combing the lawn and the CIA/FBI all over NYC and officials locking down the scenes of the attacks.

There's no reason that the wikileaks founder would necessarily know ANY inside info about 9/11. People seem to need to come to it on their own and have the epiphany personally. They need to be in a place to understand it themselves. Additionally, if he's never received any insider info, perhaps that makes him all the more confident that the attack did not involve insiders.

FAQ: Wouldn't the orchestration of the attack by insiders have necessitated the involvement of large numbers of people?

Not in the execution of the attack. A conspiracy can involve different levels of complicity, with knowledge of the complete plan limited to a few individuals. There are plausible scenarios of the attack as an inside job in which the number of such individuals is smaller than the number of individuals accused by the official conspiracy theory of "sleeper cells" directed by Osama bin Laden.

High-ranking officials in the government have at their disposal several tools that Osama bin Laden would have lacked, such as detailed knowledge and control of the military's disposition and response to the attack, and access to the military's and intelligence agencies' hierarchical and compartmentalized command structure designed to execute complex operations with individuals working on a need-to-know basis. Compartmentalization is an organizational tool long employed by intelligence agencies. 1

The speculative scenario outlined in Attack Scenario 404 explains how the attack might have been carried out by as few as twelve individuals.

"Leaks" are his Schtick

He reminds me of Arianna Huffington. He seems primarily concerned with name and fame. And "leaks" are his shtick. He hasn't shown himself to be a truth seeker, and therefore HAS failed the litmus test, as others have said.

BTW, for all the hype surrounding Wikileaks, I have to say it's not a very interesting or enlightening web site, IMHO.

about 30 years ago

Let's see, that was about the time
-- that Brezinski was snookering the Russians into Afghanistan and folding them so the Grand Chessboard would be open to the empire.
-- The Iranian revolution happened along with the embassy hostages, setting the scene for the October Surprise, which put Poppy and Sleepy in the White House.
-- The CIA et al set up the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, later to be morphed into Al-Qaeda, the new universal whipping boy.
Military spending skyrocketed.
Corporatism skyrocketed
What conspiracy?

(to be continued)

Wikileaks = Christic Institute

Wikileaks = Christic Institute, the foundation that got press by pursuing the Iran Contra Scandal right into a bunch of sealed court documents and easy press dismissals: "Nothing to look at here, folks. Move along." It is limited hangout, feint and test case for increased control of the internet and the press all at the same time.

Why the World needs Wikileaks

Includes other interesting talks:

http://www.ted.com

try submiting the questions you have

about this guy to :Seamus O Riley, he's an ivestigator and a body lang expert. I spoke with an amatuer about this guy who knows nothing about wikileaks and this person said to contact O Riley. He has a website and is mostly involved in high profile murder trials. Perhaps someone can convince him to look at this video etc. My friend says O Riley's never wrong and the other big body lang expert is Dr. Lilian Glass.

While Waiting for Your Expert ...

.. to weigh in. I can tell you that my fraud meter pegged dead read.

He's proud of effecting an election in Kenya??

There is an army youngster who leaks the Iraq helicopter tape .... he mysteriously gets arrested ... he says that he gave Wiki tons of other stuff - US State Dept. stuff ... and Wiki DENIES IT ... then the Wiki guy says that if they had gotten all the US State Department stuff he would release it (but says he did not get it) and when asked why he would leak US State Department stuff ...

What Does He Say???? He says it would be important to release to show Arab Governments using Torture????

And he says 9/11 is a Joke???

Come on. This outfit allows the NSA/CIA and others not only to capture all info through Big Brother ... but then to selectively release it in a way that suits their purposes - like affecting elections and .... they also have a way to grab whistleblowers as occurred with the Iraq video kid. Of course they'll throw out someone apparently damaging stuff as well - but that's no different than Chomsky. That gives them credibility. And like he admits about Iraq tape .... everyone has their views going into that tape for the most part.

By all means ... get your body language expert ... because he does blink excessively and looks like a liar and fraud. In my line of work, I question a lot of frauds and there are red flags all over this guy in what he says and how he says it.

Well all I can say on this is

I'd like to reply with a one-word answer, which would be "anyway", but that would look rude. All I can say on this is I'm not surprised. For any human being to claim an objective mind the worst thing one can reasonably say, including about 9/11, is..."I don't know". But to call it absurd or to claim to be "annoyed" without having gleaned the proper knowledge about the subjectmatter wreaks of voluntary ignorance at best. This Assange guy should know better.
At least I can say that I never trusted him (nor distrusted him) from the beginning. He hasn't yet proved himself but now his true colors are starting to appear and they look like gatekeeper colors to me.
In my view, this isn't really a big issue as I couldn't possibly care less what this man thinks about 9/11 or 9/11 truth seekers. And I know this is a bad thing to say, but his physical appearance doesn't look very....savory either. You can usually tell a person's character by their eyes and Assange's eyes don't demonstrate the least bit of compassion at all. I simply don't trust him. 9/11 IS the ultimate litmus test and he has just failed it. If he wants to keep quiet about 9/11 that's fine, but to publicly say he's annoyed with a global movement that is a million times more powerful than his own jack-in-the-box-like organization is arrogant and equally pathetic.

Next!

Here's an example of how the

Here's an example of how the mainstream media is using WikiLeaks to propagate the neoconservative agenda:

"The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26isi.html?_r=2&hp

OK, IT'S OFFICIAL. JULIAN

OK, IT'S OFFICIAL. JULIAN ASSANGE IS A GATEKEEPER FOR THE GLOBAL ELITE. EITHER THAT OR HIS FAMILY HAS BEEN THREATENED AND HE'S CAVED. ZERO DOUBT.

911 IS THE ULTIMATE TEST FOR ANY TRUE FIGHTER FOR TRUTH AND LIBERTY AS ANYBODY WHO LOOKS AT THE EVIDENCE AND ISN'T A COMPLETE RETARD CAN SEE IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY AND BLATANTLY PROVEN TO BE AN INSIDE JOB AND ASSANGE IS NO RETARD.

Outstanding post

Well documented too! Why on earth would a gratuitous comment like this fall from the lips of net warrior Assange?

As things unfold with Wikileaks, remember these questions. Why leak the primary material to the New York Times? Their record on WMD was wrong and helped BushCo lie us into a tragic invasion and war. Their withholding of the FISA story in October 2004 helped get Bush reelected. Would any of us trust the NYT to be the arbiter of what does and does not get released

It is also important to remember that Wikileaks release of the private emails from the East Anglia climate research lab inspired skeptics like this who used the leaks to discredit toe major threats of global warming. We're still dealing with the blowback from that little gem; and it turned out to be much ado about nothing when fully reviewed.

Why pick on the 911 Truth movement?

Why would Assange be annoyed by legitimate investigations into 911? How does he know that there is nothing there but conspiracy theories unless he's got some access to the truth? If so, let him speak up and make the case? Don't hold your breath. Right now, nobody is watching this watcher.

Disclosure: I wrote about Wikileaks three times, including a recount of their press conference on the video release. I suspect that I'll write about them again in light of these comments about 911.

CRU

I thought the CRU emails + fraudulent code were anonymously uploaded to a Russian server, and had nothing to do with Wikileaks?

It was Wikileaks leak

This information was a Wikileaks publication. Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009

The Telegraph article was offered as an example of how the right wing used the Wikileaks material to challenge climate change. This article mentioned a Russian upload but this was an official Wikileaks operation.

The most troubling part of this is letting the NYT have at it first. Their record is simply awful.

Confirmation of Julian Assange's comment?

Very interesting post Dr Beeth. I believe it is crucial to obtain confirmation of Julian Assange's exact comments.

In the Belfast Telegraph article, the journalist, Matthew Bell, states that he spoke to Julian Assange after his talk at the Centre for Investigative Journalism at the University of London on the weekend of 9 to 11 July 2010.

However, I still find Dr Beeth's comment about Mr Assange's cautious remarks on 9/11 two weeks earlier very interesting:

"I remember the question, and it is funny that at the time, the answer to the question “What about 9/11” didn’t shock me more than it did, when he answered it cautiously. The quote from the Belfast Telegraph reporter could be a journalist’s short-hand of Assange’s answer. As I recall it, he tip-toed around the question, indeed saying that there were many established facts about government lying that WikiLeaks could contribute, showing black-on white how we are manipulated into war and mass financial fraud. I do not recall Assange using the words: “false conspiracies such as 9/11” because that would have profoundly revolted me."

Was Julian Assange misquoted? First prize to whoever can obtain confirmation of this quote.

Sorry Naomi, my attempts to clarify what was said have so-far

not given results.

About the new leaks about the Afghan war, www.voltairenet.org put out a short article declaring their position : it ended with: “The Afghanistan war is illegal. Whether we find them likable or not, the insurgents are exercising their inalienable and legitimate right to defend their country from foreign occupation. It is not simply the blunders of any given military unit that constitute a crime; it is the sum total of all the operations executed on the ground, up to and including the mere presence of foreign troops inside the country.”

http://www.voltairenet.org/article166496.html “Wikileaks: a political diversion”

Voltairenet.org is about the only media around pointing out this self evident truth.

Obama, and the State Department keep insisting that they never chose to go to war against Afghanistan, it was a “necessity” because the US was not safe with big bad Bin Laden around in that area, and his incredibly strong “Al Qaeda” forces.

It is a proven LIE. The US was not attacked by Bin Laden, or even other “Muslim Extremists”. Al Qaeda has consistently proved itself to be a US (&-Pakistani) proxy-Legion, useful to prompt moving around US military might.

None of those “Muslim Extremists” had security access to expertly place tons of Pentagon High-Tech nano-thermate in the three most secured skyscrapers of New-York. The presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan has no justification in international law. The whole world, except apparently some journalists employed by “Der Spiegel”, “The Guardian” and “The New York Times”, know that Afghans are not a threat for the American society, except if they slowly bankrupt America, by continuing to resist rule imposed from self-deceived US military-brass and politicians who spend borrowed money to make war in far-away places.

The Belgian “WeAreChange” team would like to invite all conscious citizens in the whole world to join-in on a 9/11 Truth “Chalk Event” in every city of the World on Saturday September 11th 2010. Here is a first announcement for Brussels: http://www.wacbelgium.be/nl/evenementen/brussels-11-sept-chalk-event-we-want-naked-truth-now More is coming!

We need a quantum leap of mass-consciousness about 9/11 truth NOW, because if we allow these lies to go further, it will flare the flames of more outrageous wars based on blatant lies that continue to be published in main-stream media such as those mentioned above.

Please, all, get ready to let 9/11 Truth shine on this upcoming 9th anniversary!

Eric in Brussels http://patriotsquestion911.com/medical.html#Beeth

I did learn some more here: ( re-post from 2 days ago.)

Everybody should see this immediately

I can't put this in context right now, it's more important that I put it up quickly. Lamo is heavily drugged up in this BBC interview. Recently, it has come to light that Lamo was being coached and coerced by something called "Project Vigilant", a creepy Cybergestapo outfit that every American should know about. Cryptome chimes in as well, calling the project a 'fraud'". What I can tell you right now, from my best evaluation of the evidence, is that, in my opinion (need to be careful) the United States is running a full scale psyop against Wikileaks, and Lamo seems to be in the middle of it. This is the first time I am actually worried about Lamo.

Dr Beeth

Any opinions? Is Lamo drunk? Tired? On psychotropic drugs?

We would have to ask him...

I couldn't access the embedded video with this computer (on vacation!) but I did see Adrian Lamo interviewed by the BBC in this video: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH9pGZAV18c

What first comes to mind is lack of sleep; he can hardly keep his eye-lids open, and there might be some speech impairment, as the right side of the mouth and face isn't hanging along as fast as the left: this could be a touch of Bell's palsy, perhaps from a viral infection, due to lack of sleep. Being phoned up to participate in a live broad-cast on BBC, when you are, say in San Francisco, wouldn't help either.
Ask his friends who see him often. Maybe he's not sleeping much, as he needs to anwer so many of his friends questions.. Did I hear the BBC lady call him "Agent Lamo". Is he a full time (internet) police informant now? Is he working for that "Project Vigilant" outfit?? http://boingboing.net/2010/08/02/among-those-recruiti.html
His argumentation about why the release of the papers could put people at risk was audible. It was interesting to hear that Julian Assange had proposed that the White House go though the leaked papers first to edit out the names of people who would be at risk for reprisals. It is no surprise to me that the White House did not respond: 1) because of the reasons elaborated here: http://www.voltairenet.org/article166496.html , 2) because the White House has a knack of never responding, unless you send them a letter of praise of their latest conduct: any critical voice is filed vertically immediately: I received a letter confirming this when I voiced my concerns about the US contemplating to go to war against Iraq: they stated clearly to me that only letters of praise would be taken into any consideration! This is a legacy of Bush's "We are an Empire now, we make reality!" mentality, were people giving sound advice based on objective reality are rapidly weeded out. 3) The WikiLeaks of these diplomatic cables could also be a "Problem --> action --> solution game, where the state looks for justifications to go out and police the internet more vigorously.
The Truth will shine through all this, thanks to millions of us who will not accept more wars based on lies, especially blatantly criminal lies like the ridiculous official story on the political mass murder of American Citizens on September 11th 2001.
Do something to wake up more wide-spread consciousness on this important issue: Aug 11th is coming up, and then September 11th!!!! We need to be seen and heard, as the enemies of freedom are hard at work (some hardly get to sleep!) and getting richly paid by the military-synthetic-terrorist-industry. http://www.wacbelgium.be/nl/evenementen/brussels-11-sept-chalk-event-we-want-naked-truth-now
Above all, take good care of each other my friends, and let make sure we can sleep on our two ears! Good-night!