Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”January 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. “There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents,” said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. [1]
Daniel Ellsberg, PhD
Col. Ann Wright
Fred Burks
Melvin Goodman, PhD
Dr. Ellsberg is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11. [2] Best known for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971, Dr. Ellsberg is a former U.S. State Department envoy to Viet Nam and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Another State Department critic of the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ann Wright, who said in a 2007 interview with Richard Greene on the Air America Radio Network, “It's incredible some of these things that still are unanswered. The 9/11 Report -- that was totally inadequate. I mean the questions that anybody has after reading that.” [3]
Col. Wright is one of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served for 16 years as a U.S. Diplomat, including assignments as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. She helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001.
She also served for 13 years on active duty and 16 additional years on reserve duty with the U.S. Army.
She continued in her interview with Greene: “How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action? And I totally agree, I always thought the Pentagon had all sorts of air defense equipment around it; that they could take out anything that was coming at it. And for a plane to be able to just fly low right over Washington and slam into that thing is just -- I mean, you still just shake your head. How in the world could that happen?”
Fred Burks, former Presidential interpreter, is another State Department veteran who questions the official account of 9/11 and who signed the petition to reinvestigate. “How is it possible that our military's highly touted missile detection systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?,” he asked in an essay. [4]
During his 18-year State Department career, Mr. Burks served as interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright and many others.
Mr. Burks continued, “An even bigger question is why isn't our media asking these questions? Why isn't our military spending many millions of dollars to find out why military defense systems failed on 9/11? Why is it that the 9/11 commission budget was far less than the budget allotted to the Challenger Disaster or even the Monika Lewinsky affair? Why aren't we, the public, asking these questions and demanding answers?”
Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former State Department employee who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11. He served as a Senior Analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Dr. Goodman also later served as Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and as Professor of International Security at the National War College, 1986 - 2004.
In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report, Dr. Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it.” [5]
Dr. Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.
Another former career Foreign Service Officer who questions the official account of 9/11 is Michael Springmann. He is also one of many signers of the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.
In a speech at the National Press Club, Mr. Springmann said, “I used to be in charge of the visa section at the CIA's Consulate in Jeddah. ... There for a year and a half I issued visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and its asset Osama Bin Laden. ... Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah.” [6]
Michael Springmann
George Kenney
During his more than 20 years of U.S. government service, Mr. Springmann worked at both the State Department and the Foreign Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Among his many assignments, Mr. Springman served as Consular Officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he supervised the issuance of visas.
In a later interview with the BBC, Mr. Springmann said, “In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence. ... What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.” [7]
Another State Department veteran publicly questioning the official account of 9/11 is former career Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney, who served as Yugoslav desk officer at the State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. He resigned his commission in 1991 over U.S. policy towards the Yugoslav conflict. He then served as consultant in residence at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Currently he’s a consultant and commentator on foreign affairs and current events.
In a commentary after a 2007 interview of David Ray Griffin, PhD, Mr. Kenney said, “We should strive to clearly separate what we know from things we don't. Thus, we have a reasonably high level of confidence that the Establishment conspiracy narrative is absurd. The World Trade Center structures came down through controlled demolition. Flight 93 was shot down over rural Pennsylvania. And whatever it was that hit the Pentagon could not have been Flight 77. Further, whatever his peripheral involvement, the planning and implementation of 9/11 did not originate with Osama bin Laden.” [8]
Michael Mennard, PhD, is another U.S. State Department veteran who questions the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation. Among his assignments as a career Foreign Service Officer, Dr. Mennard served as Regional Public Affairs Officer in India.
In a statement to this author, Dr. Mennard wrote, “I am concerned about the numerous inconsistencies in the official account of 9/11. I support a new investigation regarding the tragic events of that day, the events leading up to it, and subsequent efforts to ignore the whole matter.”
Edward Peck
Shortly after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, a group of over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition [9] urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. In addition to six former CIA officials, [10] the signers included Daniel Ellsberg, Melvin Goodman, Fred Burks, Michael Springman (all mentioned above), and Edward Peck.
Edward Peck served as Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. He later served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Peck, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service, also served as U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq (1977 - 1980).
The petition stated, in part, “We want truthful answers to questions such as:
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?”
These questions and many others still remain unanswered three years after the petition was submitted and six years after the terrible events of 9/11. As the statements of these eight U.S. State Department veterans show, the need for a new thorough and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, deranged, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America’s security and the future of the entire world.
Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by more than 800 credible individuals can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
Additional information about prominent skeptics of the official account of 9/11 can be found in the author's other articles on this subject, listed below.
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
David Griscom, PhD, Retired Research Physicist. Served 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, Former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association
Enver Masud, MS, PE, Former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy
James Quintiere, PhD, Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Dwain Deets, MS, Former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center
Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, Former Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan
Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush
Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
Mary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton
Barbara Honegger, Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and White House Policy Analyst
Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq
Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
I HOPE THE PEOPLE ARE LISTENING, AND IF CHENEY'S IMPEACHMENT HEARING GOES FORWARD MAYBE WE CAN GET THE TRUTH ABOUT 911, I THINK THE MORE WE EXPOSE THE MISINFORMATION AGOUT 911, IT KEEPS IT A LIVE IN PEOPLES MINDS. THANKS FOR KEEPING IT A LIVE.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 459 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 10:37:30 AM
PatriotsQuestion911 HAS BEEN A POWERFUL 9/11 TRUTH TOOL FOR
PatriotsQuestion911 HAS BEEN A POWERFUL 9/11 TRUTH TOOL FOR ALL OF US FIGHTING FOR A NEW 9/11 INVESTIGATION !!
When I first Spoke to the founder of PatriotsQuestion911 and was told of his plans to create this site, I became electrified.
After years of beating the streets for 9/11 truth, and knowing that the neo-cons main tool to get people to turn off their logic in regards to the official 9/11 myth . . . was to call us all conspiracy loonies . . . the promise of having ONE WEBSITE . . . where we could direct anyone to see that it is high level military, intelligence, physics, architecture, and engineering experts who now absolutely dis-believe the official govt. 9/11 myth . . . was too good to be true.
But, it is true!! PatriotsQuestion911.org has created a profound tool. EVERYONE SHOULD SPEND A COUPLE HOURS EACH DAY, EMAILING PATRIOTSQUESTION911.ORG, with a unique quote at the top of the email to people all over the world.
Years ago when Steven Jones's research came out, I spent weeks gathering email addresses for physics departments, faculty, and graduate students at major universities around the world. Then I emailed them all Professor Jones's 9/11 truth research.
The other day I was reading a blog, and a physicist who is a committed 9/11 activist, who I don't know and had never met, left a post, explaining "YEARS AGO I GOT AN EMAIL FROM A GUY CALLED WILLIAM DOUGLAS ABOUT THE PHYSICS OF THE WTC COLLAPSE. THAT IS WHAT GOT ME INVOLVED."
PATRIOTSQUESTION911.ORG IS A THERMONUCLEAR WEAPON FOR SPREADING TRUTH, COMING FROM VOICES PEOPLE CAN RESPECT AND BELIEVE.
IF EVERYONE WHO SEEKS A NEW 9/11 INVESTIGATION IS NOT EMAILING THIS WEBSITE OUT TO DOZENS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY . . . THEY ARE MISSING A PROFOUND OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME GREAT GOOD FOR OUR NATION AND OUR WORLD.
Bill Douglas, Founder of National 911Visibility Project. 7 year 9/11 truth activist.
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM
I applaud Alan, and others who are trying to draw attention to the lies about 9/11. However, there are a couple of obvious omissions from his article.
Dr Morgan Reynolds and Dr Judy Wood have both sued NIST for fraud over their NCSTAR reports (which, if the official account is untrue, must be fraudulent). It's one thing to ask for investigation and another to do it yourself, publish the results and take legal action. I hope people will consider this carefully.
I would also like to point out that 9/11 is linked to the energy question, and until more people realise how and why this is so, nothing will really change.
by
Andrew Johnson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM
I had entered a diner to meet a friend for breakfast when the first 911crash occurred on TV. Everyone was quiet. The second crash brought an outward cry from many as they stood up! I was watching when the first tower came down. My first impression? "Why that looks like a demolition job!" (and I'm no contractor). Same impression when second tower came and Number 7! What struck me as very bizarre is the president remaining imobile after the news, that he didn't go on TV to talk to the people to be a leader and show courage and convey it to us.
Day 3 Fox news and maybe others showed a floor plan of the White House where new security was added!!!!!I Called them, "Are you crazy? A supposed attack on our country and you show right where there might be unattended places for a secret invasion of the White House or buildings? Soon, I was asking friends, " I read the WH had known for over a year that terrorists were over here to train in airplanes to attack buildings!!!! Why was everything silent? When the hihacking occurred where were the alarms? Norad? i read Cheney had taken command over Norad from the Pentagon at that time. Why were senators told to not fly that day? Why were many out of the state? Why all the trading before the horrid day?
I was in touch with a woman in Englandafter 911. She said her papers spoke of a pending attack on New York business interests to occur soon. She said it had appeared 6 weeks prior?! if it was in their paper, surely it was known to be forthcoming! And our president and Congress did nothing to warn our people! I have been an 'intuitive' my entire life. i 'sense' stuff, I feel things deeply.
Before 911 felt keenly this crew in the White house were using the office to further their own agenda. Never felt one iota of concern from them for the People of our nation. 'Saw' fear in Bush while debating Gore. THIS to be our president? i read recently that 286 architects, contractors, engineers are also signing a petition to investigate 911. A call for a thousand lawyers to define the laws broken of the Constitution and prosecute . My stepmother and I were talking longdistance way before Republican convention. . I NEVER heard her speak politically, but I had asked her "How do you see the political future shaping up for the country?"She seldom if ever expressed her views on gov't. etc.
Here was her answer after a moment of silence, she was 84 then, "I fear this young Bush will be nominated and I fear he will be elected. I fear so much what is going to happen under his presidency and to the country, that I don't know that I want to be around to see it all happen." I was chilled by her words, but they have come to pass.
What I have found heartening is the swell of responses and awakenings arising from solid Americans on the Internet wanting their country back and wanting a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people! i have spoken to several Native Americans, I read prophecies, and the news is,they say it's "it's too late." A great cleansing is to occur. Eventually a new world/order/government/ will emerge. Who knows, but we are losing our great nation fast. Someone wrote that governments have a run of 200 years. There are 20 steps it goes through. We're at Step 19 -Complacency and Apathy. Step 20? Anarchy and Revolution. Hope not but, we're become soft as a nation and way too wasteful. Our water/food/polluted. We've got to get back on track. so much corruption in our gov't and White House, truly, can one person really bring about the change they decry they can? Ah, hope springs eternal but I remember many campaign promises that never came to pass. Where is our Democracy when we have TV stations deciding who will debate and who will not?
Stand up against this! we're losing our country! And the Media is helping. Only THE People will be able to make changes.
by
Joyce (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 3:15:22 PM
Isn't it peculiar that many in and around the "truth movement" have affiliations with directed energy weapons? (Bob Bowman, Steven Jones, Greg Jenkins, Norman Mineta, Van Romero.)
Isn't it weird that the government contracted with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST Report, obviously to coverup evidence of directed energy weapons? (Applied Research Associates and Science Applications International Corporation.)
Isn't it unbelievable that the New York Times would publish evidence that the WTC was destroyed with explosives, but redact evidence of directed energy weapons? (That's exactly what they did by publishing edited versions of the WTC Task Force Interview transcripts!)
Look through the following highly-sourced link and get the real deal on who setup the "truth movement", whose controlling the 9/11 coverup, and who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks itself:
I don't know, but I hope they tell you to get lost.
Isn't it peculiar that many in and around the "truth movement" have affiliations with directed energy weapons? (Bob Bowman, Steven Jones, Greg Jenkins, Norman Mineta, Van Romero.)
No, not at all. The "Star Wars" program was a big deal back in its heyday. It involved lots of people from industry and the academe. The government was handing out lots of money, and everybody wanted in on it. In fact I was involved myself (in a very peripheral way).
Isn't it weird that the government contracted with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST Report, obviously to coverup evidence of directed energy weapons? (Applied Research Associates and Science Applications International Corporation.)
There are no directed energy weapons available yet (nor will there be, anytime in the near future) that have anywhere near the capability of doing massive damage to a big building, for example.
Isn't it unbelievable that the New York Times would publish evidence that the WTC was destroyed with explosives, but redact evidence of directed energy weapons? (That's exactly what they did by publishing edited versions of the WTC Task Force Interview transcripts!)
Since there are no such weapons available, no, it's not unbelievable. I hope that clears things up for you.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 297 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 5:19:43 PM
No, not at all. The "Star Wars" program was a big deal back in its heyday. It involved lots of people from industry and the academe. The government was handing out lots of money, and everybody wanted in on it. In fact I was involved myself (in a very peripheral way).
And what about the other people I mentioned? Surely you don't think it's mere coincidental that they're in or around the "truth movement". Didn't you look through the timeline I made?
There are no directed energy weapons available yet (nor will there be, anytime in the near future) that have anywhere near the capability of doing massive damage to a big building, for example.
And how would you know? Do you work in a top secret government lab? The DATA shows that directed energy weapons destroyed the WTC, therefore the weapons MUST exist. How do you explain the similuation photos on ARA's website that depict damage similar to that of the WTC? The info is in my timeline. Take a look through it.
Since there are no such weapons available, no, it's not unbelievable. I hope that clears things up for you.
Your need for a pre-determined conclusion shows you to be a practicionter of pathological science. Anyone interested in the TRUTH should look at the DATA instead of making silly assumptions.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 353 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 5:58:21 PM
Why is it that the most technically illiterate people, e.g., you, always make the most noise?
Once again, there are no directed energy weapons available that can significantly damage a big building like that.
All that happen to exist today are prototypes and laboratory curiosities. Generally speaking, they are big, bulky, fragile, inefficient, relatively weak (i.e., they deliver much less energy to a target than the kinetic and chemical energy delivered by a conventional weapon) and, lastly, they are sensitive to atmospheric conditions, and even to smoke, dust, etc., ejected from the target.
Moreover, if they really did exist in the form you imagine, they would be deployed. They are not.
So, even if you have no appreciation whatsoever of the enormous, perhaps insurmountable, technical challenges associated with the development and deployment of DEWs, just ask yourself questions like: If they existed (in the form you imagine), why would Bush be attampting to put old-fashioned MISSILES in Europe instead of lasers?
You don't need to be a physicist to reasonably answer the question. All you need to do is pay attention a little bit and not be afraid to do some simple reasoning.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 297 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 7:24:06 PM
I prove you unable to think logically. Your claim that such a weapon can't exist demonstrates your poor scientific and reasoning skills. You have a pre-determined conclusion. As stated earlier, you are a practitioner of Pathological Science. You're not interested in the truth.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 353 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 1:50:52 PM
Oh no, the Energizer Goofball is becoming obsessed with me..
I prove you unable to think logically.
Aw c'mon chumpy, you don't "prove" anything, you merely delude yourself.
Your claim that such a weapon can't exist demonstrates your poor scientific and reasoning skills.
Ok Goober, point out where I made the claim that such weapons "CAN'T" exist.
You have a pre-determined conclusion.
ROTFL! In the sense that no such weapons presently exist, well of course it's a "pre-determined conclusion" that they could not have been used to bring down the towers.
As I've endeavored to point out to you, the technology to build a DEW of the type you imagine does not presently exist, and will most assuredly not exist any time in the near future. Please try to find a sympathetic adult in your neighborhood to explain this to you.
As stated earlier, you are a practitioner of Pathological Science. You're not interested in the truth.
Yeah silly me, how dare I not patronize some pathetic internet goofball like you! That's "pathological"!
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 297 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 8:03:03 PM
Coming from a nut case like you, that's a compliment.
First, your childish name calling comments show you to be pretty, um, simple minded.
Unlike you, however, at least I have a mind.
Second, unless you are God, you cannot claim to know whether or not certain top secret weapons exist.
Sorry, but you don't need to be "God" to do some simple reasoning...although I can see why you would "think" otherwise.
Stop making an a$$ out of yourself and grow a brain.
Yo, chumpy, you're supposed to be looking at your monitor, not your mirror, as you're typing.
Oh, BTW, here's another something to have your guardian try to explain to you: anybody that had the technology to develop and deploy the kind of Star Trek-like super weapons that you are imagining, wouldn't need to resort to false-flag terrorism to start pointless wars of aggression, etc., as they'd no doubt already rule the world.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 297 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 10:53:32 PM
Can't resist throwing some greese on this name calling fire
Years ago I read up on the Energy Weapons theory. It supposedly explains why all that concrete in the buildings was reduced to dust, which is something that begs for an explanation. I've since dismissed that theory as one of the fringe ideas sure to cling to this Truth Movement. There is also another fringe theory to explain the concrete dust that I have not yet dismissed as misinformation. I think there is evidence that in the late 1990's we developed a type of Nuclear warhead that (I think) uses ignited hydrogen to trigger the explosion instead of the more radioactive nuclear fission. These classified cutting-edge weapons are smaller, and put out less radiation. Such a devise could have blown through the elevator shafts of the towers and melted those buildings from the inside out. If such a devise exists and was used on 9/11 it could explain documented reports of all electrical devises and cell phones going dead in Manhattan right before the buildings fell, and might also shed a light on the fact that people who worked around those buildings are currently dying of cancers and respiratory illnesses in droves. That's my crazy theory. Let the name calling begin.
by
Davol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 10:44:50 AM
CB_Brooklyn does the same thing all over the web. Ad hominem, derision, innuendo.... promoting the unprovable and innane.... coupled with spurious attacks against those who disagree - designed primarily to discredit honest researchers. Misleading and distorting - responding with generated affront against all when challenged on his nonsense.
Proposing a theory (even though unprovable and supported by scant evidence at best) would be one thing. But slurring and damning everybody else in the process is one of the hallmark signs of cointelpro.
by
richard (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 6:55:46 AM
You know, a healthy number of authors and commenters here (and elsewhere) talk about counter intelligence and psychological operations agents as if they were behind every pixel. No offense, people, but you are (indeed) very small fish in a great, big Internet ocean. My suggestion is that you accept other posters here for who they are based upon their statements and not what your dime store, detective novel told you i
