...
I think that Wikileaks is and has put the final nail in the rotting corpse that is the 9/11 truth movement. Watching how they have handled the US government over the state department papers and the afghan war papers shows us that any whistleblower who had inside information on 9/11 could EASILY leak those documents and be safe... yet no documents have been leaked. Go figure.
The above portion of your post is of interest, as it is directly contrary to a post of mine, (poat # 44) also appearing on this page.
See:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6211539&postcount=44
In addition to the obvious bias against 9/11 truth claims that the founder of wikileaks has displayed, there are a variety of other reasons that make your claim about the leaking of 9/11 information totally untenable.
For one thing, 9/11 was a massive psyop, unlike any of the matters for which leaked information have emerged. To date, wikileaks has received notoriety primarily because of a video depicting wanton slaughter in Iraq, a likely war crime; and, lots of chatter from Afghanistan, likewise detailing likely war crimes in a few instances out of a lot of otherwise banal and useless military and diplomatic chit chat.
There is a lot of 9/11 data that is comparable to that already in the public domain. For instance, Condoleeza Rice's claim that 'no one could have imagined hijacking of planes' was directly contradicted by the subsequent revelation that simulated hijackings were taking place on 9/11 at the time of the alleged hijackings.
The information concerning the military exercises on 9/11 is a key area where further leaks, when they occur, might well fracture the grip that the 9/11 psyop has upon the public's consciousness.
The list of people with military experience who have flat out said the common storyline of 9/11 makes no sense is, in and of itself, a form of whistleblowing.
The many disclosures by top ranking members of the 9/11 Commission or its staff are likewise sources of whistleblowing.
Clearly, then, your premise is factually untenable. When the facts are coupled with the bias exhibited by wikileaks' founder, we have a situation where the actual remedy needed is the formation of a website dedicated to "9/11 leaks" as wikileaks has obviously made itself an unworthy candidate for such leaks.
So again, tell me how "small" this "cabal" would be. Your ******** theory (which made me ROFLMAO) about only needing 1 person wouldn't work.
So first you need to develop ANY COHERENT THEORY that explains the events of the day. Then you need to show who this cabal is.
Personally I am reminded of the old saying "the only way to keep a secret between 3 people is if 2 of them are dead." Information LEAKS from EVERYTHING. US nuclear secrets, Missle launch codes, Mafia informers (we all know what happens to people who squeal, but they keep on squealing), heck good ole Billy Clinton couldn't keep a private affair with an intern secret... but we are supposed to believe that a "small cabal" of individuals, who would need massive amounts of "need to know" specialists, and yet not one has ever kept a document, an email, and none of them are smart enough to figure out what they helped do? REally?
so this is a plan created by a cross between the A team and Rainman... got it.
The above is awfully disjoined in my view and at variance with the actual state of development of the challenges to the common storyline of 9/11. Very few people actually advocate for the veracity of the common storyline; instead, the state of the art seems to be that the common storyline is still the beneficiary of something like a "plausibility standard" that it barely passes.
By and large, the common storyline is "believed" because the alternative to belief in it is too painful for many to deal with.
I personally think that is one reason why the reactions to evidence and information that I post up is usually of an emotional nature.
?)
