CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

[Childlike Empress]

Which windmills would these be? Debunking 911 truthers is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

They prefer to "debunk" people who believe in a fake conspiracy against by an imaginary, all-knowing illuminati, because it's easier to attack a straw man than a real one.

 

[LSSBB]

This doesn't make sense. There are many political and other activists who post here.

Making a few 9/11 related posts at JREF is a little bit like "windmill" fighting I suppose, in that the truth movement doesn't exist except virtually. However, arguing against a failed cause that often becomes an obsession which then prevents someone from fighting a real problem is not really "windmill fighting" in that by discrediting the 9/11 truth movement, it may dissuade others from wasting their efforts on it. Every moment that a truther is handing out DVD's in Dundas Square or wherever, he could be stocking a food pantry, building a home or rescuing an abused animal.

I think of my 9/11 posts here as anti-slacktivism or anti-religion.

Agreed, it not only wastes time that could be better use to productive causes, it serves to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt among the more impressionable members of society, and spreads the hopelessness that leads to alienation and even less contribution to productive causes. It's lose-lose.

 

[dafydd]

They prefer to "debunk" people who believe in a fake conspiracy against by an imaginary, all-knowing illuminati, because it's easier to attack a straw man than a real one.

Explain this real one to me please.

 

[carlitos]

Agreed, it not only wastes time that could be better use to productive causes, it serves to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt among the more impressionable members of society, and spreads the hopelessness that leads to alienation and even less contribution to productive causes. It's lose-lose.

Good point. I'll add that to my raison d'etre here.

Here's the Monbiot article about bayoneting a straw man. On the effects of "truth" vs. real conspiracies, he writes:

The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

Obviously internet comments aren't the best proxy for real action, but the ratio is pretty extreme.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Explain this real one to me please.

Last time: read the thread. This is my 65th post in it and many of them contain information about the topic and leads where to start investigating it. paloalto has researched it in depth. Read his posts, too. Others have added as well. Nobody is going to do your homework for you.

 

[dafydd]

Last time: read the thread. This is my 65th post in it and many of them contain information about the topic and leads where to start investigating it. paloalto has researched it in depth. Read his posts, too. Others have added as well. Nobody is going to do your homework for you.

All I have seen are vague allusions strung into the semblance of a theory. Please give me the broad outline.

 

[LSSBB]

Last time: read the thread. This is my 65th post in it and many of them contain information about the topic and leads where to start investigating it. paloalto has researched it in depth. Read his posts, too. Others have added as well. Nobody is going to do your homework for you.

In other words, you are saying: "Stop trying to pin us down to the facts. Reread our conjectures, only this time try to truly believe. Oh, ye of little faith."

ETA: conjectures regarding intent, not the documented intelligence lapses and redirects.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sibel Edmonds is only tangentially related to the topic of this thread, mostly because she has an internet radio show where she interviewed the producers of the documentary, and gave them advise. This interview is still in the OP, btw.

She did not plan to become a public whistleblower, she tried to report what she found in the language department to the appropriate people, only to get heavily retaliated against. Which triggered her going up in the chain all the way to a gagged congress(!) not allowed to talk about her case. Which is the real story and another case of the fish stinking from the head, somehow paralleling the topic this thread is about and other glimpses into the cover-up, like what happened to the Able Danger story. Which she manages to reveal in a profound way in her just released memoirs, while avoiding to name the details that could get her to jail, but are known from others sources anyway, if one is interested in the topic.

Why should she and others go to jail for no reason/without effect, given a complacent media and a profoundly disinterested public? That's the real problem. It's all in the open, but nobody cares.

(tl;dr rambling post follows)

Legitimate thread drift and legitimate topic of discussion. I know you're an avid reader. Have you read her testimony from Ohio? And the comments before and after? She included nothing about foreknowledge of 9/11 because, IMHO, she has nothing. I don't believe she actually said anywhere that she translated or read that memo, communications, briefing, whatever... but that is cited on her Wiki page as purportedly part of her testimony to the Commission.

My personal theory as to the elided testimony to the commission is that there was too much unrelated inter-agency blah blah in there. They were looking into 9/11 and she was testifying as to Turkish bad guys trying to sway elections and do illegal lobbying. And, as with a lot of these other redacted items from various hearings, I think one agency or the other is constantly pretending that their little bit of worthless gossip comes from a potential hot source that needs to be cultivated and protected. (The Tailor of Panama comes to mind.)

That's where I'm splitting hairs and hoping to get some clarification after a decade. I believe we need whistleblowers and I believe that the FBI actually confirmed that her initial reports were accurate. Many of the members of her group are simply whistleblowers concerned with waste and mismanagement. A couple seem to be professional whiners, but that could just be perception and bias on my part. Be that as it may, they serve a purpose because bureaucracies left unchecked can be a very dangerous thing. And in that respect, Sybil probably did some good within a very narrow range with her initial complaining and probably a lot more good in the aftermath in setting up her little group. Again, we need whistleblowers.

And I think we need muckraking journalists to open cans of worms that better investigators can pursue and hopefully get some detailed and documented answers to. I just don't see that here. The speculation as to which person said what and when is important; not because I want to lay blame on individuals but because the name is associated with a position and the position will get us closer to determining whether this was agency infighting and turf wars or an actual cover-up.

And... by "cover-up" I do not mean hiding the administration's involvement in the crime. I mean brother bureaucrats and spooks covering up for their coworkers and bosses to hide the horrid state of affairs in the intelligence-gathering bureaucracy.

Oh, and I agree that it's out in the open. I'm not sure that I agree that no one cares. Unfortunately, they may care and just think that it's fine and this is the way that government agencies act or need to act. And on the other side of the table sit the guys like Fetzer and our friend PaloAlto, who will take those items/facts/testimony and embroider opinions around them to come up with the grandest conspiracy in history.

I'd like to concur with what Chris Mohr pointed out and while I'm loath to say that a negative can be offered as proof, I think the argument is valid. Where are the thousands and thousands of memos on various conversations of those covering up this massive crime? Assange surely has no love for the PTB in any US administration. Is he willfully blocking release of the smoking gun tapes to protect his own involvement? Hmmm? Where was Julian on 9/10-11/2001?

No, I think the course of investigation is correct in targeting the intelligence failings (not just gathering but analysis and sharing) and as Sabrina pointed out, the arrogance. 9/11 was America's Maginot Line.

 

[Childlike Empress]

(tl;dr rambling post follows)

By mentioning Uncle Fester and paloalto in the same breath you just earned your tl;dr comment. What Bradley Manning allegedly revealed to wikileaks wasn't even on the level of "Top Secret" like Ellsberg's papers. "Thousands and thousands" of memos aren't known to exist even after decades of research into proven historical conspiracies, for example by, of all people, memo-loving Germans - ask the guys in the Holocaust thread.

 

[Robrob]

Last time: read the thread. This is my 65th post in it and many of them contain information about the topic and leads where to start investigating it. paloalto has researched it in depth. Read his posts, too. Others have added as well. Nobody is going to do your homework for you.

I have read the thread. Other than vaguely implied paranoia, there's not much "there." Perhaps rather than insist others research your POV, you could simply state it in your own words?

 

[000063]

Nothing. Your posts show an incredible (willful?) ignorance of the topic. You can close your eyes all you want and throw generic platitudes about "working in the government" at us as often as you want, it doesn't change a thing about the facts at hand.

Said CE, carefully avoiding responding to the factual assertions that made up the bulk of Sabrina's post.

I am allowed, but freely chose not to comment on this move by the JREF. I did do at the time. You were not allowed to read them on a need-to-know basis.

On what basis are you making this asser-

Again, I am not allowed to read them on AN UNCLASSIFIED COMPUTER SYSTEM. The DoD issued a directive stating all DoD personnel were prohibited from accessing Wikileaks on unclassified computer systems. Note the term "unclassified" there, CE. You have no idea what I have or have not read, so kindly cease saying that I am not allowed to read something when in fact what I am not allowed to do is discuss the CLASSIFIED contents of memorandums on an UNCLASSIFIED system. Get it right.

Oh. You didn't actually have any. Good job proving our groupthink.

The proof is in the pudding, Chris.

I specifically asked you why you didn't prove a certain statement wrong, and you declined to do so, you hypocrite.

You do realize that the word proof in that statement means ''test'' and not ''evidence''? The full statement is ''the proof of the pudding is in the eating''. The truther pudding is notoriously fact free.

I'm not sure it's pudding at all.

The sad thing is there are some truthers who won't even acknowledge the twin towers! As if the entirety of 9/11 was an empty building collapsing (WTC 7). Just amazing the lengths some will go to in order to keep their fantasies alive.

I'm still waiting for anyone besides Clayton to explain how the bad guys kept WTC 1's collapse from disrupting the boom-boom in 7.

They prefer to "debunk" people who believe in a fake conspiracy against by an imaginary, all-knowing illuminati, because it's easier to attack a straw man than a real one.

Hang on, gimme a second...

For every 9/11 fact showing proof that 9/11 was an inside job there is a nonsense lie spewed by those with their backs against the wall.

The end is near for neocon gang.

So you're saying Neo-Cons are TPTB?

There are many Ph.D.s speaking out, publicly, that 9/11 was not the result of 19 Arabs hijacking four jet airliners.

As long a people bleat "Oh you think the joos Didit" the Zionists, the neocons, and their Mossad are home free. Just what do people think the Mossad has been up to for the past 60 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad#History

Which is not the case here. It's just a warning by the neocons to anyone who dares appeal to the US Courts to press for the truth of 9/11.

Consider this, neocons control the bellicose US foreign policy. How many average people even know what neoconservationism is? How many average people know the names of neoconservatives? Or the names of neoconservative think tanks? Even worse, who are the people who support/pay for the neoconservative think tanks?


Gives new meaning to the SILENT MAJORITY(oligarchy).

The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

That's what the Army gets for using suggestive MOS codes, I guess. Let's see you turn the Navy designator of 1115 (Surface Warfare) into a double entendre'.

Heh. My rating designator was 0000 (Torpedomans Mate, submarines, no longer a rating BTW). We shortened it to "All Balls".

 

[000063]

I have read the thread. Other than vaguely implied paranoia, there's not much "there." Perhaps rather than insist others research your POV, you could simply state it in your own words?

She can't. Apparent that would "conflict" with her goal of proving us wrong.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I have read the thread. Other than vaguely implied paranoia, there's not much "there." Perhaps rather than insist others research your POV, you could simply state it in your own words?

This thread is not about my POV. Read it again.

I specifically asked you why you didn't prove a certain statement wrong, and you declined to do so, you hypocrite.

Looks a bit like i'm ignoring your noisy ramblings, eh, number? Oh, wait ---

 

[dafydd]

CE won't answer me. Let's see if I have this right. From the nest of vague allusions I glean that certain figures in the security forces knew that the 911 attacks were going to take place but let it happen, and this may have involved senior people in the government at the time? Am I right?

 

[000063]

...
Looks a bit like i'm ignoring your noisy ramblings, eh, number? Oh, wait ---

That tends to happen with Truthers after people keep pointing out things they'd rather be ignored. They claim it's incorrect, never rebut any of the actual points, and then stop responding. Ergo is especially fond of swooping in, sneering at a single sentence, and leaving without providing evidence. And, of course, declaring something "noisy ramblings" is not the same as saying it's wrong. The last time you tried that with your "not even wrong", you got spanked.

It's clear you're not ignoring me because I'm wrong, but because you don't want to acknowledge my points. Such as, oh, every other one I made in the post you quoted. Sabrina even specifically contradicted you and, gosh, you stopped responding to her posts. That's what happens when you can't dismiss things with one-liners.

Truthers frequently cite some sort of unseen, omnipotent organization. It's pretty much Clayton Moore's favorite argument. Even the simplest truther "theory" requires some widespread government complicity. Chris7 tried to argue that secret nanothermite explosives could've been developed by a small group within the CIA, and people promptly pointed out that they would would have to be developed, repeatedly tested, and installed, which would run into hundreds of people and millions of dollars even before the actual coverup. He has since stopped making claims on the matter.

The point of the statement where I called you a hypocrite is that you demand evidence from others, while outright refusing to provide it for your own claim.

 

[dafydd]

This thread is not about my POV. Read it again.

What is your POV?

 

[000063]

What is your POV?

It is amazing the lengths she's going to to avoid saying anything other than "debunkers are wrong" and then refusing to back it up.

 

[dafydd]

It is amazing the lengths she's going to to avoid saying anything other than "debunkers are wrong" and then refusing to back it up.

Was my resume even vaguely right? It's hard to tell what CE is actually saying.

 

[BStrong]

(tl;dr rambling post follows)

Legitimate thread drift and legitimate topic of discussion. I know you're an avid reader. Have you read her testimony from Ohio? And the comments before and after? She included nothing about foreknowledge of 9/11 because, IMHO, she has nothing. I don't believe she actually said anywhere that she translated or read that memo, communications, briefing, whatever... but that is cited on her Wiki page as purportedly part of her testimony to the Commission.

My personal theory as to the elided testimony to the commission is that there was too much unrelated inter-agency blah blah in there. They were looking into 9/11 and she was testifying as to Turkish bad guys trying to sway elections and do illegal lobbying. And, as with a lot of these other redacted items from various hearings, I think one agency or the other is constantly pretending that their little bit of worthless gossip comes from a potential hot source that needs to be cultivated and protected. (The Tailor of Panama comes to mind.)

That's where I'm splitting hairs and hoping to get some clarification after a decade. I believe we need whistleblowers and I believe that the FBI actually confirmed that her initial reports were accurate. Many of the members of her group are simply whistleblowers concerned with waste and mismanagement. A couple seem to be professional whiners, but that could just be perception and bias on my part. Be that as it may, they serve a purpose because bureaucracies left unchecked can be a very dangerous thing. And in that respect, Sybil probably did some good within a very narrow range with her initial complaining and probably a lot more good in the aftermath in setting up her little group. Again, we need whistleblowers.

And I think we need muckraking journalists to open cans of worms that better investigators can pursue and hopefully get some detailed and documented answers to. I just don't see that here. The speculation as to which person said what and when is important; not because I want to lay blame on individuals but because the name is associated with a position and the position will get us closer to determining whether this was agency infighting and turf wars or an actual cover-up.

And... by "cover-up" I do not mean hiding the administration's involvement in the crime. I mean brother bureaucrats and spooks covering up for their coworkers and bosses to hide the horrid state of affairs in the intelligence-gathering bureaucracy.

Oh, and I agree that it's out in the open. I'm not sure that I agree that no one cares. Unfortunately, they may care and just think that it's fine and this is the way that government agencies act or need to act. And on the other side of the table sit the guys like Fetzer and our friend PaloAlto, who will take those items/facts/testimony and embroider opinions around them to come up with the grandest conspiracy in history.

I'd like to concur with what Chris Mohr pointed out and while I'm loath to say that a negative can be offered as proof, I think the argument is valid. Where are the thousands and thousands of memos on various conversations of those covering up this massive crime? Assange surely has no love for the PTB in any US administration. Is he willfully blocking release of the smoking gun tapes to protect his own involvement? Hmmm? Where was Julian on 9/10-11/2001?

No, I think the course of investigation is correct in targeting the intelligence failings (not just gathering but analysis and sharing) and as Sabrina pointed out, the arrogance. 9/11 was America's Maginot Line.

Very well stated, and the last paragraph is spot on.

You might be interested in Henry Crumpton's book The Art of Intelligence, he describes exactly what happened pre-9/11, and it's pretty much exactly as you stated.