Friday, October 29, 2010
Tony Shaffer, he's certainly not your typical "conspiracy
theorist", we know what he is though, he's a self-proclaimed, CIA trained
Psychological Operations /Information Operations expert, a job title that includes
spreading disinformation as a working skill set. I would like to point out that I was able to have someone I know who works for the Department of Defense check and see if he is who he is claimed to be. They were not able to find any record of him working for the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), which is under DOD, but they did confirm that he is in the Army Reserves.
Before continuing with this post, I want you to view the following images, and ask yourself:
1.) "What is his motivation?
2.) "Why is he contacting the alternative media who is attacked by the rest of the mainstream media, and associating himself with them on a regular basis?"
3.) "Why does the MSM not attack him?"
4.) "The story he is telling about Able Danger supports which angle? An inside job where the buildings were brought down by demolitions, or the official government story of 9/11?"
(Click here to see my interactive map that shows the connections surrounding Tony Shaffer, including links to Boeing, whose planes appear to have been illegally modified (converted to drones), electronically hijacked, and flown with precision into the Pentagon and World Trade Center Twin Towers.)
A small piece of Boeing's criminal history:
- - In 1989 Boeing pleaded guilty and paid a penalty of more than $5 million in connection with charges that it illegally obtained classified Pentagon planning documents.
- - In 2006, The Boeing Co. agreed to pay $15 million to settle federal allegations that it broke the law by selling commercial airplanes equipped with a small chip that has military applications.
It is among the largest fines a company has ever faced for violations of the Arms Control Export Act, which regulates the sale of defense products to overseas interests. The Chicago-based company also agreed to oversight requirements because settlements over previous violations did not result in full compliance. According to the State Department charges, Boeing shipped 94 commercial jets overseas between 2000 and 2003 that carried the QRS-11 gyrochip embedded in the flight boxes. At the time, the chip, used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile, was on a list of products that required a license for foreign sales. The chip is part of a backup system that maintains an artificial horizon for pilots.
Before continuing with this post, I want you to view the following images, and ask yourself:
1.) "What is his motivation?
2.) "Why is he contacting the alternative media who is attacked by the rest of the mainstream media, and associating himself with them on a regular basis?"
3.) "Why does the MSM not attack him?"
4.) "The story he is telling about Able Danger supports which angle? An inside job where the buildings were brought down by demolitions, or the official government story of 9/11?"
(Click here to see my interactive map that shows the connections surrounding Tony Shaffer, including links to Boeing, whose planes appear to have been illegally modified (converted to drones), electronically hijacked, and flown with precision into the Pentagon and World Trade Center Twin Towers.)
A small piece of Boeing's criminal history:
- - In 1989 Boeing pleaded guilty and paid a penalty of more than $5 million in connection with charges that it illegally obtained classified Pentagon planning documents.
- - In 2006, The Boeing Co. agreed to pay $15 million to settle federal allegations that it broke the law by selling commercial airplanes equipped with a small chip that has military applications.
It is among the largest fines a company has ever faced for violations of the Arms Control Export Act, which regulates the sale of defense products to overseas interests. The Chicago-based company also agreed to oversight requirements because settlements over previous violations did not result in full compliance. According to the State Department charges, Boeing shipped 94 commercial jets overseas between 2000 and 2003 that carried the QRS-11 gyrochip embedded in the flight boxes. At the time, the chip, used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile, was on a list of products that required a license for foreign sales. The chip is part of a backup system that maintains an artificial horizon for pilots.
- - In 2006, Doug Bain, Senior VP and General Council of Boeing said, "So what's the impact if we get indicted or convicted? Besides the normal fines and that kind of stuff, there's a presumed denial of export licenses, and that would be both on the commercial and the government side. In a moment, I'll give you an idea of why we are concerned about that one. We can get re-suspended or all of IDS (Integrated Defense Systems) can be debarred. We can lose our security clearances. And one nasty little thing is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has an almost explicit prohibition on possessing explosives. For those of you who are at BCA [Boeing Commercial Airplanes], you might remember that every single door on an airplane has actuators that are triggered by explosives. So, why do we keep talking about this stuff? The simple answer is, if we're not careful it can happen again."
In no way do I mean to implicate the people who have him on their shows, but I do want to bring into question, why he wants to be affiliated with them.
It all started when, on Friday, October 19, 2010, I contacted Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer - by posting on his Facebook wall - to request a comment from him about statements made by a woman named Ellen Mariani, a 9/11 victims' family member. Her husband was allegedly killed on Flight 175 on September 11th. Here is the full text of our correspondence.
911 Disclosure Blog:
Can you comment on the claims of Ellen Mariani?
"Mariani referred to another Scarborough guest last night, Richard Miniter, as a professional presidential spin doctor who referred to Able Danger as a former operation to rid terrorists throughout the world, which Mariani maintains is not true."
"Mariani referred to another Scarborough guest last night, Richard Miniter, as a professional presidential spin doctor who referred to Able Danger as a former operation to rid terrorists throughout the world, which Mariani maintains is not true."
“Able Danger was the secretive bucket shop operation in
Brooklyn, New York where alleged terrorist Mohamed Atta - a known
Mossad-Defense Intelligence operative - had direct ties to the Bush-Clinton
crime families.”
"Able Danger found Mohammed Atta connection to CIA network in Brooklyn"
"During the CIA's Jihad, Al-Farooq Mosque & the Alkifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn were Rahman's key bases of operation and a springboard for 'the string of jihad offices that had been set up across America with the help of Saudi and American intelligence.' Rahman didn't just pop up in Brooklyn by accident. Rahman received four visas from "CIA agents acting as consular officers at American embassies in Khartoum and Cairo.
When queried later Wednesday by e-mail, Zaid speculated about why the Pentagon halted 'Able Danger.'
One theory is that Defense Department officials became 'very uncomfortable' when the LIWA program ran China charts that showed links to U.S. political officials. The China effort, however, was not part of 'Able Danger,' he wrote.
When LIWA shut its operation down in 2000, the 'Able Danger' program was forced to move elsewhere. But why the program itself was shut down in late 2000 or early 2001 is still a mystery."
"Able Danger found Mohammed Atta connection to CIA network in Brooklyn"
"During the CIA's Jihad, Al-Farooq Mosque & the Alkifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn were Rahman's key bases of operation and a springboard for 'the string of jihad offices that had been set up across America with the help of Saudi and American intelligence.' Rahman didn't just pop up in Brooklyn by accident. Rahman received four visas from "CIA agents acting as consular officers at American embassies in Khartoum and Cairo.
When queried later Wednesday by e-mail, Zaid speculated about why the Pentagon halted 'Able Danger.'
One theory is that Defense Department officials became 'very uncomfortable' when the LIWA program ran China charts that showed links to U.S. political officials. The China effort, however, was not part of 'Able Danger,' he wrote.
When LIWA shut its operation down in 2000, the 'Able Danger' program was forced to move elsewhere. But why the program itself was shut down in late 2000 or early 2001 is still a mystery."
911 Disclosure Blog: "Just Curious as
to what your perspective is on that."
What is a bucket shop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)
“Bucket shop is a brokerage firm that “books" (i.e., takes the opposite side of) retail customer orders without actually having them executed on an exchange. These brokerages are also often called boiler rooms. The term is a defined term under the criminal law of many states in the United States which make it a crime to operate a bucket shop. Typically the criminal law definition refers to an operation in which the customer is sold what is supposed to be a derivative interest in a security or commodity future, but there is no transaction made on any exchange. The transaction goes 'in the bucket' and is never executed. Without an actual underlying transaction, the customer is betting against the bucket shop operator, not participating in the market. Alternatively, the bucket shop operator "literally 'plays the bank,' as in a gambling house, against the customer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)
“Bucket shop is a brokerage firm that “books" (i.e., takes the opposite side of) retail customer orders without actually having them executed on an exchange. These brokerages are also often called boiler rooms. The term is a defined term under the criminal law of many states in the United States which make it a crime to operate a bucket shop. Typically the criminal law definition refers to an operation in which the customer is sold what is supposed to be a derivative interest in a security or commodity future, but there is no transaction made on any exchange. The transaction goes 'in the bucket' and is never executed. Without an actual underlying transaction, the customer is betting against the bucket shop operator, not participating in the market. Alternatively, the bucket shop operator "literally 'plays the bank,' as in a gambling house, against the customer."
Anthony Shaffer:
" I do not know Ms Mariani - have no idea about her
motivations or perspective, but no - sorry - do not buy that anyone either
"allowed" or "made" 9/11 happen in the federal government.
My perspective is never look to conspiracy where basic incompetence explains
the failure. And yes - ABLE DANGER was a global anti-terrorism operation as I
have testified about in open congressional hearings before."
911 Disclosure Blog:
“Thank you for your comment Anthony, your openness to
speak publicly is highly respectable. I do understand that you are not a
criminal investigator (Correct?), but are an intelligence gatherer, I am
assuming here that if you "don't buy" that "anyone" in the
"federal government" either "allowed" or "made 9/11
happen", that you (Most likely scenario here.) probably haven't looked
into it that much further than your scope of work.
I do understand that not everyone is like myself and has vast amounts of time to spend on the issue, and some people are just unwilling to spend any time looking at it, for various reasons. So, I do not intend to claim that you have or have not looked deeply at the facts that surround the 9/11 case, nor am I here to place blame or put you down if you haven't. Though I do suggest you take some time to do so, if you haven't already; I think you will find it a very rewarding use of your time!
What I do know is that once someone does spend some time looking into the events and timeline surrounding 9/11/01, they inevitably find that there are so many inconsistencies, blatant lies, details to look at, people involved, technologies employed, networks used, witnesses murdered, reports falsified, and so on, that it is hard to "wrap your head around it".
The way I am looking at your comment though, is from this angle. First I am wondering if you believe it is possible or not that someone within the federal government could commit a crime and get away with it. If so, how long can they get away with it? You seem not to think that it's even a possibility.
Let's pretend here that I am an investigator tasked with figuring out how this sort of thing could happen on 9/11 and who is responsible. First I would need to see where a "failure" occurred and then who was involved in keeping that from happening. If I first looked at things from the perspective of "basic incompetence explaining the failure", all any guilty party would have to do to keep me from looking at them in a negative light by ensuring that they make it appear as if they were negligent. Case closed, they walk, but sometimes it's not that simple. People do want to get away with crimes, and they'll go to great lengths to do it, especially if it means large payouts, ideological victories, personal security (If they've been extorted into doing it.), or any other number of things.
You know, defense attorneys, just like prosecuting attorneys, approach every case from the perspective that their client is lying to them and is guilty. So when they take a case, they aren't just waiting for the prosecution to prove their client guilty, they're looking for a way to prove them innocent. They have to assume you are lying and guilty because the prosecutor is looking at it that way, and if they have evidence, you could be in a lot of trouble if your lawyer believes you aren't guilty.
To date, I am not aware of a single investigator or attorney that would approach any case at all (Not to mention the largest terrorism event in all of history.) in such a way that they would look to see if "basic incompetence" could answer why the event happened. That would be a gross injustice, and they would be negligent on their part. You see, if you wish to find guilt, you can't approach the situation as if the parties must be innocent.
That is the number one problem with the 9/11 commission report and the way that the media reports on 9/11. The first thing they do is assume that any parties responsible for the (C4 ISR) Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, must be innocent. So instead of approaching it from the angle that there could be guilt, they try instead to prove their innocence. Actually, the difference here is that the script writers of these news stories know what happened, and they're providing cover, just like the 9/11 commission provided a cover by ignoring all of the more important details and chasing down the actors.
Do you ever think about why you were looking for the individuals you were? What was so special about them? There is a network of people that is a million times more powerful, more wealthy and more evil and determined to carry out their plans against the United States, why these weak little guys with (allegedly) limited resources? In reality they are well connected with the network I am referring to which we will refer to as the role they self-appointed themselves, Global Guardians.
That's not how it works in a court of law now is it? No, absolutely not. The investigators are there to find out how you could be guilty, the prosecution is there to prove you guilty, the defense waits until later to bring up its evidence, if necessary, once they see if the prosecution has enough evidence to prove guilt.
In the case of 9/11, there is a vast amount of information available, much more than is necessary to convince a jury or judge that certain parties are guilty. We just have to approach it from the right angle, trying to prove guilt, not innocence.
Thank you.”
I do understand that not everyone is like myself and has vast amounts of time to spend on the issue, and some people are just unwilling to spend any time looking at it, for various reasons. So, I do not intend to claim that you have or have not looked deeply at the facts that surround the 9/11 case, nor am I here to place blame or put you down if you haven't. Though I do suggest you take some time to do so, if you haven't already; I think you will find it a very rewarding use of your time!
What I do know is that once someone does spend some time looking into the events and timeline surrounding 9/11/01, they inevitably find that there are so many inconsistencies, blatant lies, details to look at, people involved, technologies employed, networks used, witnesses murdered, reports falsified, and so on, that it is hard to "wrap your head around it".
The way I am looking at your comment though, is from this angle. First I am wondering if you believe it is possible or not that someone within the federal government could commit a crime and get away with it. If so, how long can they get away with it? You seem not to think that it's even a possibility.
Let's pretend here that I am an investigator tasked with figuring out how this sort of thing could happen on 9/11 and who is responsible. First I would need to see where a "failure" occurred and then who was involved in keeping that from happening. If I first looked at things from the perspective of "basic incompetence explaining the failure", all any guilty party would have to do to keep me from looking at them in a negative light by ensuring that they make it appear as if they were negligent. Case closed, they walk, but sometimes it's not that simple. People do want to get away with crimes, and they'll go to great lengths to do it, especially if it means large payouts, ideological victories, personal security (If they've been extorted into doing it.), or any other number of things.
You know, defense attorneys, just like prosecuting attorneys, approach every case from the perspective that their client is lying to them and is guilty. So when they take a case, they aren't just waiting for the prosecution to prove their client guilty, they're looking for a way to prove them innocent. They have to assume you are lying and guilty because the prosecutor is looking at it that way, and if they have evidence, you could be in a lot of trouble if your lawyer believes you aren't guilty.
To date, I am not aware of a single investigator or attorney that would approach any case at all (Not to mention the largest terrorism event in all of history.) in such a way that they would look to see if "basic incompetence" could answer why the event happened. That would be a gross injustice, and they would be negligent on their part. You see, if you wish to find guilt, you can't approach the situation as if the parties must be innocent.
That is the number one problem with the 9/11 commission report and the way that the media reports on 9/11. The first thing they do is assume that any parties responsible for the (C4 ISR) Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, must be innocent. So instead of approaching it from the angle that there could be guilt, they try instead to prove their innocence. Actually, the difference here is that the script writers of these news stories know what happened, and they're providing cover, just like the 9/11 commission provided a cover by ignoring all of the more important details and chasing down the actors.
Do you ever think about why you were looking for the individuals you were? What was so special about them? There is a network of people that is a million times more powerful, more wealthy and more evil and determined to carry out their plans against the United States, why these weak little guys with (allegedly) limited resources? In reality they are well connected with the network I am referring to which we will refer to as the role they self-appointed themselves, Global Guardians.
That's not how it works in a court of law now is it? No, absolutely not. The investigators are there to find out how you could be guilty, the prosecution is there to prove you guilty, the defense waits until later to bring up its evidence, if necessary, once they see if the prosecution has enough evidence to prove guilt.
In the case of 9/11, there is a vast amount of information available, much more than is necessary to convince a jury or judge that certain parties are guilty. We just have to approach it from the right angle, trying to prove guilt, not innocence.
Thank you.”
I then posted the above to 911 Disclosure Blog, and he responded
after he saw it post to
Facebook
Shaffer Responds:
I did NOT give you permission to use our communication
on your bloc. Remove it now or we will no longer communicate.
I have done interviews via FB...after I give permission. You did not have permission.
I will check your blog in 30 min...and if it is not removed there will be no further contact between you and me.
R/
Tony Shaffer
I have done interviews via FB...after I give permission. You did not have permission.
I will check your blog in 30 min...and if it is not removed there will be no further contact between you and me.
R/
Tony Shaffer
911 Disclosure Blog:
Sorry Anthony, I didn't know it was a problem. I
thought you were being open with everyone and wouldn't mind. What's the issue
here?
You know that anyone can look at it anyways, right?
Can you answer a few more questions of mine, if we
agree to the terms? And if I promise to take it down?
You did NOT ask me...remove it now...I have no problem
being open...did not say anything I have not already said...but you did not ask
for permission to use MY comment.
I apologize, may I use your comment sir? I think it
helps to counter the false perception that people have of you. Most people seem
to think you agree that "911 was an inside job".
No.
If you want to interview me, state that upfront...
Otherwise there is nothing more for us to discuss.
If you want to interview me, state that upfront...
Otherwise there is nothing more for us to discuss.
Could I ask you a few questions if I take it down?
I can agree to whatever terms you'd like.
30 min are almost up.
I'm not out to "get" you, but I am surprised
that the TV media hasn't attacked you per their pattern.
Deal, let's talk.
It's down, and if we can agree to some terms, I'd
really like to ask you a few simple opinion questions, with permission.
Anonymity is also an option if necessary
the only catch here is that if you don't talk to me
anymore, I basically have your permission to post what we've said so far, is
that correct?
no.
Oh, well I can edit it of course, to fit what is
acceptable by the DOD. ;)
joke
I really don't have much more to ask you anyhow, but I was wondering if you knew anything about Crown Agents (City of London) and was wondering if our intel was correct. We at Abel Danger believe they are behind the 9/11 attacks.
joke
I really don't have much more to ask you anyhow, but I was wondering if you knew anything about Crown Agents (City of London) and was wondering if our intel was correct. We at Abel Danger believe they are behind the 9/11 attacks.
The question to "DoD Agent" (You):
Are you aware of the Crown Agents and the livery companies in the City of London?
Do you believe it is even remotely possible they could have had involvement in 9/11?
Are you aware of the Crown Agents and the livery companies in the City of London?
Do you believe it is even remotely possible they could have had involvement in 9/11?
Hey, I even picked a really good picture of you to use
in the blog, how angry can you really be? :D
You have 30 minutes to respond or I will repost, you're
breaching trust if you refuse a response after I responded to your REQUEST.
Wait, so you're saying you don't like how I responded
to you, right? I can remove my response, but I'd like to keep your response to
what I first asked if that's ok.
" I do not know Ms Mariani- have no idea about her motivations or perspective, but no - sorry - do not buy that anyone either "allowed" or "made" 9/11 happen in the federal government. My perspective is never look to conspiracy where basic incompetence explains the failure. And yes - ABLE DANGER was a global anti-terrorism operation as I have testified about in open congressional hearings before."
" I do not know Ms Mariani- have no idea about her motivations or perspective, but no - sorry - do not buy that anyone either "allowed" or "made" 9/11 happen in the federal government. My perspective is never look to conspiracy where basic incompetence explains the failure. And yes - ABLE DANGER was a global anti-terrorism operation as I have testified about in open congressional hearings before."
Can I use it if I stop it there? I'm ok with that.
sorry...does not work that way...you took info from MY
wall...you violated the trust here..
Nothing in my original comment I am worried about...this is about YOU and your lack of integrity...you re-post what I have asked you to remove, as I said before, we will no longer communicate.
Nothing in my original comment I am worried about...this is about YOU and your lack of integrity...you re-post what I have asked you to remove, as I said before, we will no longer communicate.
Okay then, that's fine. All I really want is you to
answer the question about the Crown Agents (anonymously) and that's really all
I've got left.
And I don't see how that's violating trust, you never asked me not to share it, it's on Facebook, it's one of the most open mediums out there, you KNOW that!
And I don't see how that's violating trust, you never asked me not to share it, it's on Facebook, it's one of the most open mediums out there, you KNOW that!
good luck winning friends in the future...you will
need it.
That honestly doesn't concern me. And there's no need
to respond like that. I didn't KNOW that you had a problem with me posting it,
you never communicated that, it's Facebook! Anyone can read it if they want to!
I didn't see that as a potential issue if you didn't.
Let's put that behind and move forward. You're a big CIA trained psych warfare expert, I'm not. That's why I'm trying to ask questions of YOU and not the other way around, right?
I'm the loser here! Seriously. And you saying things like that doesn't really help either of us out. I never claimed to be smart! I'm a "conspiracy theorist nut"! ;)
If you can answer my question, then this will all be taken care of and you can go back on TV and do what you do, and I can go back to sittin on my butt doing nothing productive and working at a restaurant cleaning dishes like a loser.
Let's put that behind and move forward. You're a big CIA trained psych warfare expert, I'm not. That's why I'm trying to ask questions of YOU and not the other way around, right?
I'm the loser here! Seriously. And you saying things like that doesn't really help either of us out. I never claimed to be smart! I'm a "conspiracy theorist nut"! ;)
If you can answer my question, then this will all be taken care of and you can go back on TV and do what you do, and I can go back to sittin on my butt doing nothing productive and working at a restaurant cleaning dishes like a loser.
"30 min are almost up"
I respected your request, will I get the same from you?
4 minutes and we'll see.
No answer = taking back everything I said and no more communication
plus
Posting everything you've said and you making yourself look like an asshole to the world.
I respected your request, will I get the same from you?
4 minutes and we'll see.
No answer = taking back everything I said and no more communication
plus
Posting everything you've said and you making yourself look like an asshole to the world.
Go ahead...I do not respond
to threats...I do hope you post EVERYTHING...including my responses...don't
think I will be the one who look bad here.
Good bye
Good bye
Then he blocked me on Facebook. I managed to use a bug in
the search feature at the time to find what he was posting to his public wall.
And this is what I found:
Anthony Shaffer:
I have always been one to expose, as rapidly as possible, idiocy...and lunacy (as in this case). Here is a doozie.
Let me state for the record - I am a conservative - not a "9/11 Truther" - have no desire or interest in being part of the 9/11 Truth movement because of the paranoia and "loony tunes" I've had to deal with (and if my comment offends you please feel free to de-friend me - there has been no other group of folks I've had to "block" members of)...and man - have I met a real hyper paranoid "loony tune" - some guy names Marc ****. Please check out his paranoid rant that he put on his page regarding a private (Read the Facebook terms and conditions, nothing is private, they can even sell your picture and information.) conversation he pulled off my wall and posted.
Let me be clear - I do NOT for a minute believe the U.S. government or anyone in it willingly allowed or participated in the 9/11 attacks...with that said there are conspiracies to cover up the incompetence and failures to act - and it is this "common ground" for the need for a fair investigation of the 9/11 events that is the only overlap between my view/knowledge of the 9/11 attack and the "9/11 Truth" view of the world. There was/is a 9/11 conspiracy - to cover up the mistakes made by members of the government - not to help Al Qaeda to conduct the attack.
9/11 was a tragedy - and some people like Mr. **** have made it into their personal playground to incite fear and distrust instead of working to seek the truth. This is sad - especially for those who lost love ones on 9/11 for individuals like Mr. **** to prey on the family members - people like Mr. **** who 1) have no direct knowledge of 9/11 events 2) no legitimate personal interest and only idle curiosity and 3) have some hidden agenda to tear at the U.S. government because of their own personal in security that detracts from legitmate 9/11 Truth folks who do seek the truth.
Anthony Shaffer:
I have always been one to expose, as rapidly as possible, idiocy...and lunacy (as in this case). Here is a doozie.
Let me state for the record - I am a conservative - not a "9/11 Truther" - have no desire or interest in being part of the 9/11 Truth movement because of the paranoia and "loony tunes" I've had to deal with (and if my comment offends you please feel free to de-friend me - there has been no other group of folks I've had to "block" members of)...and man - have I met a real hyper paranoid "loony tune" - some guy names Marc ****. Please check out his paranoid rant that he put on his page regarding a private (Read the Facebook terms and conditions, nothing is private, they can even sell your picture and information.) conversation he pulled off my wall and posted.
Let me be clear - I do NOT for a minute believe the U.S. government or anyone in it willingly allowed or participated in the 9/11 attacks...with that said there are conspiracies to cover up the incompetence and failures to act - and it is this "common ground" for the need for a fair investigation of the 9/11 events that is the only overlap between my view/knowledge of the 9/11 attack and the "9/11 Truth" view of the world. There was/is a 9/11 conspiracy - to cover up the mistakes made by members of the government - not to help Al Qaeda to conduct the attack.
9/11 was a tragedy - and some people like Mr. **** have made it into their personal playground to incite fear and distrust instead of working to seek the truth. This is sad - especially for those who lost love ones on 9/11 for individuals like Mr. **** to prey on the family members - people like Mr. **** who 1) have no direct knowledge of 9/11 events 2) no legitimate personal interest and only idle curiosity and 3) have some hidden agenda to tear at the U.S. government because of their own personal in security that detracts from legitmate 9/11 Truth folks who do seek the truth.
Let me be clear hear to enhance my comment and be fair to
my 9/11 Truth friends...I have a number of very close friends who are part of
the 9/11 Truth movement - they are rational folks who have a perspective and
point of view that allows them to be respectful - and they, too, are upset by
the "posers" who come into their ranks to cause this type of chaos
and confusion...this respect and rational thinking has been offset by those who
are more interested in causing disruptions and are, very likely, sent in by
outside organizations to have this very effect. I suspect this to be true in
this case. My comments are NOT directed at you all - and you know who you are -
who have continued to work toward an independent investigation of the issues
that would allow the questions - of all sides - to be addressed and answered.
@Stephen and @Neil - I agree there are inconsistencies and missing information that need to be reviewed - you both have discussed with me over the past year issues and aspects that remain unaccounted for - and I do agree that the actions of NORAD the day of the attack, and the WTC 7 implosion are two areas that the official explanation have huge inconsistencies - and issues that I have NO direct personal information or experience in, but that I do agree that there is something wrong - and why I believe there is need for dialog and debate - however, when I run into people like Mr. **** who clearly have "an agenda" and are out to cause chaos, and appear to even be towing the official Pentagon line (i.e. trying to discredit my eye witness account of my direct knowledge) there is something wrong...there is common ground - there are things that everyone who is serious about resolving what happened on 9/11 - that should be the focus of efforts...not small minded individuals who are co-opted by DoD officials to help the government story by working to discredit first hand witnesses (as Mr. **** is now working to do).
--------------------
@Stephen and @Neil - I agree there are inconsistencies and missing information that need to be reviewed - you both have discussed with me over the past year issues and aspects that remain unaccounted for - and I do agree that the actions of NORAD the day of the attack, and the WTC 7 implosion are two areas that the official explanation have huge inconsistencies - and issues that I have NO direct personal information or experience in, but that I do agree that there is something wrong - and why I believe there is need for dialog and debate - however, when I run into people like Mr. **** who clearly have "an agenda" and are out to cause chaos, and appear to even be towing the official Pentagon line (i.e. trying to discredit my eye witness account of my direct knowledge) there is something wrong...there is common ground - there are things that everyone who is serious about resolving what happened on 9/11 - that should be the focus of efforts...not small minded individuals who are co-opted by DoD officials to help the government story by working to discredit first hand witnesses (as Mr. **** is now working to do).
--------------------
1 comment:
Great post. This article is most important information base. Thanks for your nice post.
Emergency dentist Brooklyn
Post a Comment