Mike Vreeland

[TroubleMan]

This post is directed to God_Bush_N_Cheney (hope I got that right).

I know the Vreeland story very well. You say you know him. What's the latest on that story? I was following it on copvcia.com, but I haven't seen anything lately about it.

If you can, give me the latest scoop here. If not, then please email me. I am very interested in it. Thanks.

[seventhson]

1. I wonder too

nt

[thebigidea]

13. holed up in the midwest...

probably a motel 6 of some kind... do not disturb" sign - dirty bedsheets covered with dozens of credit cards with as many different names (which of them still work, Delmart wonders...)

He goes to internet cafes to test potential credit cards, he posts on ridiculous online boards under a blizzard of names to add to the aura, the aroma of excitement that IS...

AGENT VREELAND: CONMAN FOR THE CIA!

this weeks episode: WISING UP THE MARKS
special guest villain: Abe Vigoda as "Venison Charlie"

SEE! drama beyond imagining as the dashing, sexually ambiguous slickster babbles on and on... slipping in just enough "sounds like it might be true" patter to fool the naive set...

SEE! Excitement in the form of deluded web "journalists" hot on the trail of a lot of hot air!

SEE! the eventual appearance of his "brother" Terry, airing out a laundry list of laughable leachlike behavior!

SEE! Derision called Disinformation!

SEE! Cynicism derided...

Mike Michael "Delmart" Vreeland in a role that will surprise you - playing himself, uh - or a slightly modified fantasy version, anyway.

coming last year from Paranoid Subtext Pictures...

CATCH THE INTRIGUE! SMELL THE STEAMY CARNIVAL BULLSHIT!

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. Yes I know vreeland...

But unfortunately he vanished on Sept 9 2002. Remember the day? You should. It was the same day Bush* Met with the Canadian Premier on a bridge. Remember that day? I do.

I know him well. He wanted me to get him on film. and was in fact I was scheduled to go to Canada to film him. But he vanished. But I assure you. He is like a cat and will land on his feet.

[thebigidea]

14. with his paws in a lot of wallets, I imagine

MEOW!

[Andy_Stephenson]

36. Your right on that...

I know he is not clean...but he did tell me two events way beforehand that did happen. They were small and insignificant but they did happen nonetheless.

[thebigidea]

39. what were they?

vague generalities like a horoscope?

or?

[Andy_Stephenson]

40. Direct

exact and to the point.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

43. So why won't you tell us about these Vreelander prophecies-come-true?

Hm?

[Andy_Stephenson]

48. Why so you can sit there and demand proof?

can't offer the proof. Because they proof was a phone call made to me. I didn't record it. I am not a spy or hack...

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

50. Just tell us what he told you. Tell us about the convincing predictions.

That's all.

[Andy_Stephenson]

51. Sorry

I am not going to give you further opportunities to impune me. You stepped into this thread hostile from the start. I owe you nothing!

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

59. I stepped into this thread hostile from the start" with DAMN GOOD REASON.

This is long past time that this pathetic joke of a distraction be flushed down the toilet of history so we can get on with getting to the TRUTH, not trying to untangle an inveterate con-man's gordian knot of lies within lies within lies.

I ask you, if it's impossible to know when he's lying and when he's telling the truth, WHAT POSSIBLE USE SHOULD ANYONE HAVE FOR DELMART VREELAND?!?

[Andy_Stephenson]

62. Good disinfo always has truth embeded...

you should know that.

[thebigidea]

44. you'd help your case a lot more if you would explain

GBC, I'm kinda surprised - didn't know any one still fell for this hoo-ha...

Vreeland is just a fast-talker! Don't get bitten.

[Andy_Stephenson]

49. I know he is a con man...I have stated that!

But there is more to the story...I have suspicions can't say what. But I think he is legit in one way or another.

[LanternWaste]

175. Good work all the way around

Hey, man. Good work all the way around. I'm (obviously) kinda new around here and have been eating up the BBV stories, and some of the other stories you guys talk about.

Now you've got me DAMNED curious. Could you direct me to links or sources that have something (anything) to do with the things you're saying but not saying re: this particular post?

[Minstrel Boy]

176. There's this from The Toronto Sun, Sept 10 2002

TORONTO (CP) - He claimed to be a U.S. spy with advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks _ but now the only trace of accused con man Delmart Edward Vreeland is his "ransacked" apartment, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Vreeland might've either been "killed, kidnapped, or harmed" because he apparently had evidence that the U.S. government knew beforehand about last year's terrorist attacks, lawyer Paul Slansky said.

An arrest warrant took effect Tuesday after Vreeland failed to show up for his own extradition hearing _ the second such no-show in two days. After gaining access to Vreeland's apartment Monday, Slansky told court that the apartment appeared to have been ransacked and that police had subsequently filed a missing person's report.

There were no signs of forcible entry or struggle, and missing was key evidence that would have proven Vreeland's claims, Slansky said.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/2002/torontosun091002.html

[LanternWaste]

178. Thanks, MB

Thanks. It's a place to start. Hope I don't piss off anyone for being too curious...lol.

[Mari333]

3. Hmmm

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/vreeland.html

[Andy_Stephenson]

4. That is Mike

He is a devil to be sure...but there is much he told me in advance that happened after he said it would. He told me he wanted to prove to me he was who he said he was. He did and I do.


Remember the theory I was talking about in the other thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=392459&mesg_id=404006&page=

[MrPrax]

5. For whatever it is worth

Yeah I am wondering about him too...
BUT here--unsubstantiated--is something:
Jones interview with Stanley Hilton, the lawyer pushing the 911 lawsuit:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/jones_report_031403_hilton.html

Gordon: I’m calling from Toronto.

AJ: Welcome, from Canada, go ahead.

Gordon: Hi, I really appreciate your show and Hi Mr. Hilton.

SH: Hello

Gordon: The first time I heard about you was at the Washington protest in October. I went there to attend and I was given a pamphlet where I discovered that you were representing family members. And so I really appreciate your work and your patriotism.

AJ: Almost a total news blackout and he represents more families than anybody else.

Gordon: Right. Actually Alex, for you, I have something interesting. A couple of weeks ago, I don’t know the man, but I came across him. His name is Rocco Galati. He was the lawyer for Delmart Vreeland and it was in a conference at the University of Toronto. And he mentioned his name, so I waited until after the conference to speak to him. And, I approached him and asked him if he was Rocco Galati and he said yes. And I asked him what had happened to Delmart Vreeland. And, he drew closer and whispered that, “He’s dead.” I speculated that he was killed in August and he said that he had been killed September the 4th of 2002.

AJ: Now wait, you’re saying his lawyer said this?

Gordon: Yes, yes, indeed.

AJ: Did Mike Ruppert write about this?

Gordon: Not yet. Not that I’ve seen.

AJ: Well I don’t know if that’s a true story. Were you familiar with the Vreeland story, Mr. Hilton?

SH: No. No I’m not.

AJ: Well he’s this guy who did pass the jail guards and he was Naval Intelligence. He was in jail, fleeing the U.S. government up in Canada.

SH: Oh, wait a minute. I think I know now. I actually do know who it is.

AJ: Yeah, he gave them the letter, saying that the World Trade Center is going to get knocked down. That was confirmed. And then this caller from Toronto is saying that he’s dead. I don’t know if that’s the case. I’ll have to find out.

SH: I know who it is but I don’t know if he’s alive or not. I don’t know.

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. Lololol

Wild speculation there. The letter was real I have seen it. He is who he says he is albeit not quite what we think.

[MrPrax]

7. Yup...

very wild speculation from a 'reliable' source...
LOL

I think Vreeland is a conman...and his disappearance is explainable within that 'theory'

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. Ah but you don't really know do you.

I have spent MANY MANY hours talking to him...have you? I took copius notes...did you? I checked what he told me. Wether you like it or not...he told me 2 things that would happen. They did just as he said they would. You may think he is a con man...and it is probably true. But there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Believe me. He is legit. Arrest record, Claims of Govt service and all. You might want to learn about the Capitol Escort Service in Washington DC.

[Mari333]

9. and the Capitol Escort Service I assume

is somehow hooked up with the Franklin Cover up, which this individual knows about, and will expose in October?

[Andy_Stephenson]

10. No I never said that did I?

if so provide a link for context. You keep saying this but I don't remember posting it. There was a post re something good the other day. I did not start the thread. I may have posted something...but I am sure I don't remember the context.

That said I do think Vreeland is linked to franklin somehow...and could tell us much.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

17. Did you sleep with him?

Do you play chess?

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. No I did not sleep with him

and I don't play chess.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

16. You saw it BEFORE the buildings went down?

Vreeland is a fraud. Always has been, always will be.

[Andy_Stephenson]

19. So says you....

I on the other hand know he is not.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

20. How?

How do YOU clain to KNOW he's not a fraud, when a great many investigators have spent a great deal of time PROVING THAT HE IS a fraud?

[Andy_Stephenson]

24. Because I did my own investigation.

"dude"

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

27. Why don't you share the fruits of that investigation with the rest of us.

Hmm?

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

21. Also, you didn't answer my question. Did you see the note BEFORE 9-11?

Because if you didn't, all you saw was a piece of worthless paper, dude.

[Andy_Stephenson]

22. The note in question has already

been certified by the Canadian Courts to be authentic. Disprove it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Minstrel Boy]

46. Hey Jerky, it's true.

And it's not because I believe everything I read on the Internet. I know it because my oldest friend was Vreeland's attorney.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

47. Your oldest friend is Rocco Gallati? And he saw the note before 9-11?

Really?!

[Minstrel Boy]

53. Paul Slansky, Gallati's partner in the Vreeland case

and a prominent extradition lawyer.

[9215]

81. No kidding?

I am the one who gave the Vreeland story to Mike Ruppert. Ruppert didn't think it was much until I gave him Rocco Galati's info, then he flew to Toronto

Also remember that Rocco was hammered with "food poisioning" during the heat of this affair.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

86. Food poisoning which he claimed was the result of a "hit" attempt on him..

by none other than Federal Reserve chairman ALAN GREENSPAN!!!!

And guess what? Vreeland drank that poison wine, TOO! It had the same drug that killed Marc Bastien! MARC BASTIEN I tells ya!!!

Good thing both those guys were too tough and strong for the drug that killed Marc Bastien, eh? Otherwise, we would never have learned the TRUTH!

[thebigidea]

88. not only that - but Vreeland just happened to have the antidote!

I admit, the whole sage would make for a great movie. Sort of Phildickian thing wherein the conman believes his own con. In and out of a fevered schizoid mindset... box office gold!

now to get Universal on the phone...

[9215]

142. Are you claiming a "hit" on Galati.

is out of the realm of possibility? Or a hit on Bastien?

[Andy_Stephenson]

91. And Slansky had a dead cat hung on his porch

if I am not mistaken.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

98. Gee, I wonder who did that? Could it be...

VREELAND?!

[Minstrel Boy]

147. quite a trick, as he was in

jail at the time.

He also had his car broken into, and all that was taken were documents pertaining to the Vreeland case.

[thebigidea]

149. I take it you can back that up?

>He also had his car broken into, and all that was taken were >documents pertaining to the Vreeland case.

the police were contacted, yes?
Or let me guess - they weren't, because "THEY" were in on it...

otherwise, it should be a simple matter to check to see if a break in was reported.

[Andy_Stephenson]

162. Wow!

you just coroborated something vreeland told me.

Thanks

[9215]

11. Here is a link

to an earlier thread at DU. Lots of good stuff:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=13556&forum=DCForumID35&archive=#1

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Thanks 9215

Great thread!

[9215]

68. I dug thisout of my files

I'm glad you realize the importance of networking with numerous folks when you are looking into such stuff, particularly the "Conspiracy of Silence" stuff. Remember what happened to Bob Stevens' the first victim of "anthrax".

Be careful friend.

[Andy_Stephenson]

82. I hear ya.

the black suburbans are scary.

[SeattleRob]

15. GNN

There was an interesting article about him recently on the Guerilla news Network site (I think it is www.guerrillanews.com )

I think there are some fascinating aspects about this story. Especially when they made the call to the Pentagon from a Candadian Courtroom.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

23. VREELAND A PROVEN FRAUD AND CON-MAN!!! (links included)

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/vreeland.html

[Andy_Stephenson]

26. I'm sure the site includes the arrests where

he was in 2 locations at one time...right?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andy_Stephenson]

31. I have seen the site before.

nothing new there.

[Andy_Stephenson]

32. Oh and by the way...If you had taken the time to read yourself...

I said Vreeland was probably a con man and the arrests were probably valid...that being said there is still more than meets the eye.

[Must_B_Free]

28. So what does that make God Bush N Cheney?

if he says Vreeland is legit?

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

33. Wrong.

Or complicit.

[Andy_Stephenson]

34. Complicit

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now thats funny.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

35. Fits Vreeland's MO on the now-defunct message board he used to run.

Remember that one? The one where he was repeatedly made a fool of until he was forced to take the whole thing down?

[Andy_Stephenson]

37. Actually the site is still up.

But then you already knew that.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

38. Link?

I stopped going there when it was taken down (for like the tenth time), nearly a year ago.

This was after Vreeland was conclusively proven to be a fraud, btw.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

41. Never mind! I found it. For those who want a laugh, go to...

http://pub157.ezboard.com/fwwwltvreelandcomfrm1

[Andy_Stephenson]

42. Well if you have been there...

you should know the link by heart.

[Capn Sunshine]

45. Someone who knows a con man?

What's your point? Do you only go to church and right back home to your computer, or does your world include someone who may have broken the law before?

or could it include................................SATAN?:evilgrin:
Isn't that special

[Minstrel Boy]

52. Do you expect that an

ONI operative would be an angel? These people are practiced liars.

His attorney - and this isn't hearsay; I've known him for 30 years - had Vreeland quietly checked out by contacts in Canadian intelligence, and they told him he was who he claimed.

But he didn't take everything Vreeland told him at face value. He believes some of Vreeland's story was deliberate disinformation, that he was withholding information. But there's much which is incontestable. The warning note for one, and the call in open court to the Pentagon. The Prosecution explained it away by saying Vreeland must have, from a Toronto jail cell, hacked his way into the Pentagon computers and changed his records. Is that more plausible?

Vreeland also claimed Canadian diplomat in Russia Marc Bastien was murdered. The official story was natural causes. Only much later did Canadian authorities admit evidence points to Bastien having been poisoned.

G_b_n_c said it well:

"He is who he says he is albeit not quite what we think."

[Andy_Stephenson]

54. Thanks Minstrel Boy

BTW Tell Rocco and Paul I said Hi.

[Andy_Stephenson]

55. Jerky_LeBoeuf

can't or won't respond to your post. His head is spinning now trying to regroup.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

56. Actually, I have a job.

I haven't even read it yet. I'll read it now.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

57. I'm sorry, but that is the very DEFINITION of hearsay!

I don't know your friend, but Rocco Gallati is a fruitcake. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could pick him up and throw him.

[Andy_Stephenson]

58. How funny you are

what axe do you have to grind?

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

60. What axe do I have to grind? The axe of STUPID LIES!!!

And that's all this Vreeland story is... a pack of unsubstantiated lies, exaggerations, unsupported claims and ominous forebodings that are vague to the point of worthlessness.

[Andy_Stephenson]

61. So you've said...

but I wonder what motivates your hatred. I think your either paid...or related. Is that you Terry?

[Minstrel Boy]

63. This isn't "friend of a friend"

urban myth bullshit. I've known Paul since Grade 6 and first heard about Vreeland from him. Are you suggesting, unless I'm Vreeland himself, that everything I could tell you is hearsay?

Think what you like. I'm just a guy at a keyboard. But I know, as well as I know anything, that the warning was delivered and sealed a month before Sept 11.

[Andy_Stephenson]

64. And the pentagon confirmed his rank

the fact he had an office there and that he was in the navy.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

65. In forged documents provided by Vreeland.

This has all been explained time and time again.

[Andy_Stephenson]

66. Ummmm

the phone call to the pentagon was in open court on a speaker phone...
and I quote

"On January 10, Vreeland defense attorney Slansky pulled a dramatic courtroom stunt. He called a Pentagon operator from a speakerphone in open court, and asked if there as a listing for a “Delmart Vreeland.” He was given an office number and phone extension. The prosecution countered that Vreeland is a computer expert who likely discovered a way to hack into the Pentagon's network from jail, or had simply called the Pentagon from a jail phone and conned a military switchboard operator into assigning him an office and phone extension, though they offered no proof to support their argument."

Edit: A conman that is a computer expert...hmmm...yes.

[Minstrel Boy]

67. Also, Vreeland's personnel file is 1,200 pages long.

There is evidence that portions were hastily sanitized, but the alterations indict the Pentagon rather than Vreeland.

[Andy_Stephenson]

69. 1200 pages for a short stint is unreasonable.

and yes the sanitized version provided by the pentagon is inconsistent...for example...gaps and missing pages.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

129. It's also bullshit. There were no 1700 pages.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/ruppert.html

[Andy_Stephenson]

134. Again

"On January 10, Vreeland defense attorney Slansky pulled a dramatic courtroom stunt. He called a Pentagon operator from a speakerphone in open court, and asked if there as a listing for a “Delmart Vreeland.” He was given an office number and phone extension. The prosecution countered that Vreeland is a computer expert who likely discovered a way to hack into the Pentagon's network from jail, or had simply called the Pentagon from a jail phone and conned a military switchboard operator into assigning him an office and phone extension, though they offered no proof to support their argument."

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

71. What you see as "sanitization," other people see as Vreelandization.

The so-called government documents about his military career were provided by Vreeland himself.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Wrong!

They were provided by the US government.

and I quote

"In court, the Navy submitted records that showed Vreeland was in the Navy for less than a year. But this time the D.E.E.R.S record showed that he was in the Navy's employ until December 9, 2000. "

"According to the U.S. Navy's Rockie Beasley, GS-12 Assistant Officer in Charge of the Personnel Support Department, at the Norfolk Naval Base, in VA, it is not easy to modify a D.E.E.R.S record, "You have to be authorized. You need a background check and a password." You also need the new, "CAC Card, Combined Access Card - a new card with a microchip in it," that plugs into the computer you're working on. "

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

87. You always quote from the same story (without link).

Why not point out some court documents that prove your claim? Docket numbers? Anything OFFICIAL?!

Because you can't. Because it's bullshit.

[Andy_Stephenson]

90. Here

http://www.guerrillanews.com/wildcard/vreeland_three

and the court docs are linked as well.

I thought you saw the story earlier.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

70. I didn't say it was urban myth. I said it was hearsay. And it is.

hearsay

noun

Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

In Law: Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Your friend's story that he learned that Vreeland "was who he said he was" from some nebulous Canadian Secret Service people is 100 percent unmitigated hearsay.

[Andy_Stephenson]

72. My evidence is not hearsay

I got the info direct from him...what he said would happen did. Exactly as he said it would happen.

[thebigidea]

74. it looks like Vreeland is a regular Criswell then

you hafta admit that its hard to be moved by your repeated claims about this, considering you won't explain WHAT he predicted.

If you're not going to, try not to use that as part of your case.

[Andy_Stephenson]

78. Because I have nothing to back it up...

he called me...told me and hung up. If I use it...you can say where is the proof...I will only use what is in the official record. That is all I need.

[thebigidea]

79. but you ARE using it

you brought it up repeatedly in this thread.

[Andy_Stephenson]

80. Im not usig it...I merely stated I believe him

because of the phone call. How am I using it?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

73. but if you don't believe him, you're a paid disinformation agent

Vreeland is the key, man - don't you see... they're right on the verge of cracking this thing WIDE OPEN - all Vreeland needs is a coupla credit card numbers, and its as good as OPEN!

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

84. ROTFLMAO!!!

You had me going for a second there, maaan!

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

133. as opposed to your sweetness and light on this thread

Don't forget to weave in something about me working for the government, too. That always works. Helps your case, doesn't make you look like a paranoid in the slightest.

sleazy love and kisses,
me

[stickdog]

160. Wouldn't the reasonable approach here be agnosticism?

He's a con man alright.

Many intelligence field agents are con men.

He definitely wasn't the telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

He also definitely wasn't telling nothing but lies.

This is why I question people who appear out of nowhere claiming no special knowledge to disdain anyone who thinks Vreeland may have been some sort of rogue or renegade agent with some inside knowledge.

I think reasonable people should remain agnostic.

I don't find Vreeland's story particularly meaningful or important. However, there are quite a few points that are more easily explained by him being mil/intel than by him being strictly a con man who used a mil/intel cover to con people.

[thebigidea]

161. reasonable people!

"Many intelligence field agents are con men."

You could make a broader case and outright call the CIA a bunch of sleazy conmen and have little argument from me. Vreeland would fit in, sure.

I didn't dispute the possibility that somehow, someway, he was involved in some diabolical wetwork: my specific crankiness concerns this "pre-knowledge" business. I can't see how that silly note can be interpreted as "pre-knowledge."

Nothing about an attack on the WTC on 9/11, hence useless.

"This is why I question people who appear out of nowhere"

I dunno, 3k+ posts is hardly appearing out of nowhere. Unless you weren't referring to me.

[9215]

75. One fact dude

Vreeland gave a note to his jailers BEFORE 9/11 that proves he had pre-knowledge. All of this other shit is just that, SHIT! Many people with knowledge of high crimes have been neutralized with trumped up fraud and drug charges etc. But then we have already shown this ad nauseum.

You need to look carefully at the thread I posted above.

[thebigidea]

76. pre-knowledge? HOW?

it doesn't say anything about an attack on the WTC on 9/11.

That note isn't "pre-knowledge".

[9215]

93. Read the DU thread I linked above.

I am not going to defend this for the umpteenth time. LOOK at the discussion and tell me Vreeland did not have pre-knowledge and that the US government was not trying to shut him down.

Don't start parsing meanings either.

[thebigidea]

96. then do not promote this for the umpteenth time

"Don't start parsing meanings either."

Er?

Explain to me how that ridiculous note of garbled gibberish points to an attack on the WTC on 9/11. It doesn't. No amount of squinting will do it, no amount of "parsing."

Had his blessed, magical note been seen by ANYONE before 9/11 - could the incredible information enclosed be used to prevent the attack? Of course not. There isn't anything to go on there.

Forget the whole "sealed envelope, pen, jailer" amateur conman routine, I'll play along for a moment and pretend he DID write it before 9/11 - then so what? It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't predict anything.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

105. I've read the thread, I've followed this from the start.

I called Vreeland and have a few amusing minidiscs worth of material.

"Vreeland, based on his legal case had pre-knowledge of 9/11 with the note he wrote."

you still haven't proven this. Where in the note does it say there will be an attack on 9/11 at the WTC?

"If you want to go on you must read the thread I supplied otherwise FUCK OFF!"

Dearie, you're hardly in a position to give orders. And save the rancor for the real enemy. Those two masks down there...

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

137. lovely work

"I won't go into how David Corn jerks off the Left to keep them divided."

Oh, I agree. I didn't like the tone of his hit piece on Ruppert and the wish to keep all that nasty conspiracy talk away. I say, BRING IT ON. But be ready to deak with doubt, hmmm?

""IMO, you are either a David "expert on the CIA" Cornball clone, or some other enabler of fascisti.

A bold assertion. Just because I don't buy Vreeland, I'm either David Corn or a fascist enabler? Prove your case. Go investigate my work and link me to the Bushies. Fun!

"I don't know what you are trying to prove or disprove,"

There is no "pre-knowledge" - his note does not say Jack and/or Shit about the WTC on 9/11. It is a red herring.

" but you know that people who look into such matters often die mysteriously. I want you and anyone reading this to know that I network this info and there are numerous people who are reading this thread from that network. I and a friend of mine have been surveiled more than once. I take any threats seriously and will take no shit from anybody."

Are you implying that I'm threatening you?

Hey, I'm a pretty paranoid guy myself. But you're getting carried away if you think a cranky crackpot filmmaker is gonna make you dissappear mysteriously.

"In my experience people do this who work for the machine."

"Smash the control machine! Storm the reality studio!"
- William Burroughs, "Nova Express"

Which one of us is the agent?

"Ooooo, scary!"
Count Floyd, SCTV

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

141. CIA disinfo post #33058305

"I stand by my claims."

And the trail of deleted posts & insults, I guess.

"It is obvious I am saying you "could be" not you "are" a threat then go on in a speel based on that false assumption. I don't "know" who you are and don't really care."

Ok, so I "could be" a threat to you, but you don't really care. Glad that's settled. So, would you say you were at a "high" level of risk or an "elevated" level? Make sure you remember where the duct tape is.

"You assert there is "no pre-knowledge". How do you "know" this?"

Sigh. Again: his wonderful note does not in any way mention an attack on 9/11 at the WTC. I've said this, what - 3,4 times? You never seem to address this point, do you... because the house of cards kinda collapses.

Best to keep blinders on, and keep believing. If you believe REALLY, REALLY, hard - Delmart the Magic Conman Fairy will descend from the top of Sugarplum Mountain with a bag of whimsical wonder for all the good little boys and girls who bought his baloney...

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

145. triplesigh

"Did I hurt your yiddle feelwings?"

Yes. I'm devastated. My tears stain the keyboard... pained as I am by your relentless barrage of devastating wit, I still haven't sunk to calling you a "simpleton" or a "prick."

""I never address the point""In any way"? Go back to the top of the this sublink simpleton. "Let one Happen...."

once again - What part of "nothing whatsoever about a WTC attack on 9/11" is that difficult to grasp?

Show me something on that note saying there will be an attack on the WTC ON 9/11.

Nothing more.

Show me the pre-knowledge.

Point it out, blow it up, underline it, highlight it. Show me where it says there will be an attack on the WTC on September the 11th, 2001.

Having the WTC on a vague "target list" isn't quite the same, as it wouldn't take much brainpower to realize the WTC is a terrorist target since that uh, 1993 thing.

[9215]

165. Time to reinvent the points I guess.

You said:

his note does not say Jack and/or Shit about the WTC on 9/11

So, for the note to have relevance it must have specified the date Sept 11th? That the note is irrelevant otherwise? How about the time of day? I mean hell, if he can't put that on there then the note doesn't have any relevance either, correct? Do we have to get it down to the minute?

Your demand for this kind of specificity is absurd. The fact is that this note suggests that something was going to happen to the WTC, etc. at some future date and Vreeland saw this information and presented to his jailers.

Then you get specious with the bit about the WTC could have been anybody's guess, but you ignore, ever so speciously, that the Pentagon was also on the "vague" list. Why did you ignore the other target on the list, the Pentagon? IMO you ignored this because you are obsessed, for whatever reason, with snuffing out this evidence. The list was not vague. It was very specific and two of the building sites on that list were later attacked.


"Let one happen"=attack. Here is another example of you demanding unneccessary specificity in terms to even consider the evidence. All attacks are "happenings", but not all happenings are attacks. Well, what happened? OK, more than one attack happened and one was stopped (Flight 93 crashing in a field possibly headed for the White House, also on the list). OOPs, wait a minute, the note only said one would happen and the rest would be stopped. Does this make the note irrelevant? I'm glad you are idling your hours away making monster pictures and not responsible for any serious detective work. If you look at the note you will see that there are three exclamation points at the end of that statement!!! "happen" was not referring to a routine maintenance call.
http://members.freespeech.org/ltvreeland/infamousnote.html


But I want to ask you a question, one I have asked in large letters before and you ignore. If Vreeland was such a fraud, a nobody, coke head etc. then why did the US intelligence community go to such lengths to extradite him? This, at great political risk when his story went public. If the intelligence community was interested in finding out what REALLY happened on 9/11 they would have rolled out the red carpet for Mr. Vreeland, not hounded him relentlessly. THIS and alot of other stuff is what convinces me that the US intelligence community had a hand in 9/11, and that Vreeland knew something about it. Also why did his lawyers put up such a strong fight for him? I'll tell you why, because they had a good case and some moral cajones to go along with it.


The other person to mention the possibility of planes flying into buildings was JH Hatfield and he died mysteriously a couple of weeks after his last article was written in late July 2001.


Note: I think were you failed is when you started trying to figure out whether Vreeland was a fraud and didn't recall that the best efforts of the intelligence community could not prove this and that at each step in the trial, the US government backed down and or reversed itself. The "debunkers" have been debunked with the facts. It is the character assasin technique of the Right that they use religiously to detract from the substance of an issue. If the debunkers were really interested in the truth they would have helped Ruppert, who was processing alot of material, with his analysis of what he had. Instead they attacked him like pit bulls.

[Andy_Stephenson]

169. Admittedly Vreeland at times did not help his case...

But Galatti and Slansky were trying to alert authorities as well, if I am not mistaken.

[Minstrel Boy]

174. You're not mistaken

They didn't keep Vreeland's warning a secret until after the 11th. They alerted CSIS and the RCMP in August.

[Andy_Stephenson]

179. Mike also told me

up until Slansky and Galati were involved he had tried to get a hearing from the Canadian authorities, US authorities etc to no avail. It wasn't until after the fact that they wanted to talk to him and I also believe it was at that point they began to take him seriously regarding Bastien's death.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

83. The note was never conclusively proven to be written before 9-11.

And Vreeland has a known history of retro-engineering "documents" to get himself out of trouble and/or scam somebody in some way.

[Andy_Stephenson]

89. You keep repeating this when evidence contradicts you!

The note was never conclusively proven to be written before 9-11

"The fact that the notes were written and sealed a month prior to the violent attacks of Sept. 11 has not been disputed." However, a phone call to the Canadian prosecution team resulted in new, somewhat murky results. When I asked Assistant D.A. Dorette Hugins to confirm that the prosecution didn't dispute that the notes were handed to the jailers in mid-August 2001, she immediately said, that "Yes, it is true."

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

92. Link, old boy! LINK!!!

Not that Hugins' confirmation that "the prosecution didn't dispute that the notes were handed to jailers in mid-August 2001" necessarily means that they WERE handed to jailers (name? rank? badge numbers?) prior to the attacks of 9-11.

[9215]

94. This is the second time Jerk.

READ THE GODDAMN LINK I SUPPLIED ABOVE!!

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andy_Stephenson]

101. I have to question the motives of newbies...

that come in and attempt to shred a thread with innuendo...name calling and the spite that you have displayed here. If you think vreeland is a con fine. So if your done...find another thread to shit on. I have to wonder though...why all the attempts to discredit...makes me wonder who you are and who you work for...is that you Terry?

[thebigidea]

104. ooo, ooo - can I be accused of being an Agent for Control too?

"why all the attempts to discredit...makes me wonder who you are and who you work for..."

I got all the makings of a perfect disinformation agent. Oh, if only the CIA would return my calls...

[Andy_Stephenson]

106. You said "Agent of Control" not me.

Are you?

[thebigidea]

109. yes, you'll find all the proof on my website

the CIA goes to ridiculous extremes to get street credibility amongst those that like to watch low budget films based on Ed Wood novels. And they create thousands of anti-bush graphics, songs, collages, and debris too. Its a little cottage industry here at the Agency.

I was dispatched here due to George Tenet getting a funny feeling.



for more on Control:

http://www.terminalproduct.com/iceicemangle.rm

[Andy_Stephenson]

111. Hey great for you!

Does the word cointelpro have meaning to you?

Not that you are cointelpro...but the is the possibility.

[thebigidea]

113. yeah, I wrote a screenplay based on it

wove in the MK-ULTRA stuff too. All part of my deep cover.

all those unpublished novels? More deep cover. Deep, deep cover. DEEP cover.

Excuse me, folks. This is only the 2nd time the implication that I was working for the government was raised, so I gotta savor the moment.

ahhhhhhhhhh

[Andy_Stephenson]

115. Well lets get the movie in a can

and onto the bigscreen.

[thebigidea]

116. I'll just need some credit card numbers

Vreeland: conman after my own heart.

[Andy_Stephenson]

117. He can probably get them for you.

Sure would not suprise me. Now back to the evidence.

[thebigidea]

119. which doesn't exist

So far we've got:

A) friend of a friend of a lawyer
b) predictions made that can't be spoken about
c) a warning that isn't a warning, or in any way mentions 9/11/WTC

book 'em, boys. We got a solid case.

[Andy_Stephenson]

122. A phone call made in open court verifying service.

Prosecutors department verifying the note was written Aug 11th.

Redacted sanitized Naval Record provided by the US Navy.

touche.

[thebigidea]

125. a record that indicates nothing but a short stint in the Navy

I don't care about verification of the note, lets say he DID write it before 9/11. Great. Wonderful - he's a prophet, a seer.

Now: how does it predict 9/11 and the WTC attack? How could that information have been used to prevent it?

doubleplusgood touche.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

128. None of what you write here is true. NONE of it.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/ruppert.html

[Minstrel Boy]

144. who's more gullible here?

Your answer to everything is simply posting a link to a site run by an "alternative" Toronto radio host who offers no supporting documentation.

Everyone connected with Vreeland admits he's a liar and a con man. And yet...

For a serious look at Vreeland, I suggest Sander Hick's nine-part "Wildcard," on Guerrilla News Network.

"In the end, this six-month investigation for GNN confirmed what many already know: Delmart Vreeland is a liar and an accomplished con man, adept at spinning tales, and manipulating allegiances to further his own goals. In other words, he is the perfect candidate for work in U.S. intelligence."

http://www.guerrillanews.com/wildcard/vreeland_one

[thebigidea]

146. snicker

"In other words, he is the perfect candidate for work in U.S. intelligence."

nah, not quite Yale enough.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

131. Dont' forget the 1700 non-existant pages of Navy documents!

That's PROOF POSITIVE!!!

[Minstrel Boy]

151. not exactly

A) friend of a friend of a lawyer

A 30-year friend of the lawyer. And he has the greatest integrity of any man I know.

And regardless of what you think of the note and the value of its message, Vreeland's lawyers thought enough to alert CSIS and the RCMP of his warning in the weeks before Sept 11.

I don't know what the meaning of Vreeland is, and his story doesn't inform my understanding of 9/11. But there's something here.

[thebigidea]

153. but surely...

you'd have to admit that some guy on the internet saying "And he has the greatest integrity of any man I know." doesn't exactly do much for the case, yes?

"And regardless of what you think of the note and the value of its message, Vreeland's lawyers thought enough to alert CSIS and the RCMP of his warning in the weeks before Sept 11."

And that information was CRUCIAL - we have to thank Vreeland for his timely warning, it really saved so many lives.

[Minstrel Boy]

154. Naturally

you'd have to admit that some guy on the internet saying "And he has the greatest integrity of any man I know." doesn't exactly do much for the case, yes?

Sure. It's usually a good idea to be skeptical of "some guy on the internet." But then, honestly, I don't care a great deal about making a "case." I don't have any stake in convincing you. I'm just sharing what I know to be true, so take it or leave it.

[thebigidea]

155. uh huh.

"But then, honestly, I don't care a great deal about making a "case."

Which is why you're posting to this thread, yes? Out of benign indifference?

[Minstrel Boy]

158. nuh uh

Because I know more about the Vreeland story than what I read online I think I have something to contribute. But I'm not making a "case" - I'm just being a witness. Whether you believe me or not is inconsequential.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andy_Stephenson]

114. Dream world?

What the FUCK are you talking about? So it is you...Hi Terry :hi:

peutz!

Dream World...hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[9215]

118. This is really why I joined in this discussion

Jerkoff Leboe is trying to shut this topic down. We've seen this so many times before its kinda boring when we could be spending our time discussing the topic.

You'll notice thepattern, they don't read your links and then speciously pick at shit like the definition of "pre-knowledge" just to aggravate.

But this can also be interpreted as a good sign: that we are onto something the fascisti or David Cornball liberals don't want us to be onto.


PS. The Conspiracy of Silence thread was hot, nice job.

[thebigidea]

123. so I'm speciously picking at shit

ah, lovely metaphor.

Yup, I'm fascist! And I'm David Corn at the same time. AND I work for the CIA.

If you listen to my music, you'll hear secret messages telling you to read "The Nation" and stop believing Vreelandian fairy tales.

[Andy_Stephenson]

124. what he said

The Conspiracy of Silence thread should not be overshadowed by this one...What do you bet jerky boy goes and shits in there too?

[9215]

107. What are you talking about?

Sure you were impressed, impressed (or paid) enough to go around disclaiming it? Sheet you don't even know what the definition of impressed is?

Now that's impressive!

[Andy_Stephenson]

108. hahahahahahahahaha

9215 :loveya:

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

112. My reaction exactly!

Wow! What a coincidence!

[9215]

121. So why did you say you weren't impressed when you were?

Didn't your mother ever tell you......?

? What exactly were you not impressed with?

[Greyskye]

95. Can you...

Can you prove that the documentation is false, or that it was written post 9/11?

Why don't you provide some links?

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

97. It's not up to me to DIS-prove claims that have yet to be proven.

Is it?

[Greyskye]

100. Yes

Considering that the Canadian Court system seems to be satisfied, yes I believe that it is up to you to disprove this.

[Andy_Stephenson]

102. I agree...the Canadain court dropped ALL charges against Vreeland..

jerkyboy here needs to find another tree to bark up.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

127. You rely on Ruppert. Ruppert has been thoroughly debunked. See link:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/ruppert.html

[9215]

139. About this link

Who is Ron Anicich? And why doesn't he provide any sources?

[Must_B_Free]

148. anyone who has been watching for 3 years

knows that Ruppert, From the Wilderness, and What Really is not entirely factual; these people are willing to see what they want to see.

I think there is alot of good stuff in there, but not all of it is factual.

Any other veterans care to back me up on this statement?

[Andy_Stephenson]

163. This is what I have said all along

"I think there is alot of good stuff in there, but not all of it is factual."

[LanternWaste]

177. Burden of proof lies on the critic.

Burden of proof lies on the critic.

Just a bit from Logic 1301 and a few courses in Critical Thought.

[Andy_Stephenson]

120. Would love to stay and play...

But I have to go to work...I may check in from there.

[thebigidea]

126. Be Seeing You, Number 6

you'll find that the Village can be a very... comfortable place. Its just a little matter of the information inside your head...

[Andy_Stephenson]

172. that is Mr Six to you

buster.

[AP]

136. I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would spend so much time

vigorously trying to discredit a guy nobody believed in the first place. Normally, you'd think, "what a tremendous waste of time." Maybe it is very valuable to someon.

[thebigidea]

138. yeah, I know - but it was soooo fun

I gotta admit, it tickles me purplish-pink to be called some sort of disinformation agent.

Its a guilty pleasure, yeah.

[TroubleMan]

150. OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I opened a goddamn can of worms, didn't I? I was curious as to what the latest update was......I didn't know I'd be getting all of this arguement

LOL....

Why do the guys who don't believe Vreeland work scream so hard to discredit him in this thread? If you don't believe him, just post your evidence or ignore the thread. We're not going to get anywhere just flaming each other.

As for me, I'm up in the air on whether I believe Vreeland or not. That's why I'm trying to find out more info. Also, it's an interesting story whether you believe it or not.

[thebigidea]

152. hmmm

"Why do the guys who don't believe Vreeland work scream so hard to discredit him in this thread?"

the same reason you cite: "Also, it's an interesting story whether you believe it or not."

Its an incredible story! Quite frankly, I'm spelunking for material for my fiction/films. The whole thing is like a Phil Dick novel...

"If you don't believe him, just post your evidence or ignore the thread."

yeah, I've tried that. No one can still point out the connection to 9/11 on that note. There is no clear warning, there is no "pre-knowledge."

"We're not going to get anywhere just flaming each other."

Oh yes, agreed. And if you'll notice, the only deleted posts on the thread are ummm... from the Pro-Vreeland side. I may be snarky, but I didn't use any of those "personal insults" so dreaded on DU. For that, I get called a "nasty prick."

(luckily, I kinda AM a "nasty prick," so it doesn't really bother me too much.)

[Andy_Stephenson]

156. I haven't flamed anyone

But have been call an idiot, stupid and living in a dream world. I believe those insults came from your side.

[greatauntoftriplets]

157. Righto!

Check some of the user profiles on this thread. :)

[thebigidea]

159. I don't have a "side," and am not the spokesman for anything but insomnia

Nor have I insulted you, so direct your complaints to the appropriate department.

I'll be locked in the bathroom, decoding my messages from George Tenet if any one needs me.

A pleasure talkin' conmen with everyone!

[Andy_Stephenson]

164. on this statement we are alike

"am not the spokesman for anything but insomnia"

[thebigidea]

168. insomnia: the great equalizer!

[Andy_Stephenson]

170. yes...gives me far more time to analyize

and digest things.

[9215]

166. You are not on

either side?

So you are still ambivalent about Vreeland's case?

[thebigidea]

167. Hello again!

Ah, the person that called me a simpleton AND a nasty prick...

lesse...

do I:

a) bring up the damn 9/11 WTC pre-knowledge scarcity in that note AGAIN, knowing it won't be addressed
b) ignore him/her and watch an old Mystery Science Theater 3000 tape
c) pretend to be a CIA agent and make the plot sicken

Hmmm. Tough one. I'm gonna go with "b" and watch "Gamera vs. Guiron" - giant rubber monsters seem a bit more appealing than textual tar babies.

night all!

sincerely,
the perfumed prince of ambivalence

[Andy_Stephenson]

171. No can of worms

But a good healthy debate.

[0rganism]

173. This thread contains the very definition of "poisoning the well"

E.g.,
"Delmart Vreeland has been known to lie and forge documents.
Hence, everything he says is a lie, and every document he produces is forged."
or
"Mike Ruppert has been known to exaggerate. Hence everything he publishes is an exaggeration."
or even worse,
people commenting in this thread are not to be given the benefit of the doubt, as Jerky writes "definition of hearsay". (Since when is DU a criminal court?) Because they are commenting forthrightly on a matter he has already committed to insist is a fraud, GBnC and 9215 are at least dupes and perhaps complicit. What a shame.

Now there is a way to question the credibility of this story without mixing in the background noise of reputations (also largely "hearsay", but who's counting by now?). Certainly, one can exhibit healthy skepticism when the Weekly World News tabloid runs a headline like "psychic cat foretells future on scrabble board", but that is independent of whether WWN is an otherwise "reliable source"; I'd be just as skeptical if it appeared on NBC nightly news, because it's so far-fetched.

What is far-fetched about the Vreeland story? That he produced a memo weeks prior to September 2001 which appeared to correspond to future events? That the memo implicated someone higher-up the intelligence chain in allowing a crime to occur?

Perhaps if Vreeland were the only one who had such a story, it would be far-fetched. But there's the matter of the Pheonix memos, as well as a few other whistleblowers in the FBI and CIA who point to extreme negligence in the affairs of the suspected hijackers prior to September 11. Indeed, the directive to John O'Neil's outfit in Yemen to "back off the Saudis" was enough to make him quit his job in the FBI's Middle East group and take a position as head of security in the World Trade Center, weeks before the disaster.

Vreeland's allegation is remarkable in that it fits a pattern rather than being an exception in its own right.

Occam's razor does indeed apply, albeit in a way unsatisfying to Vreeland's many detractors. What is simpler, that Mr. Vreeland made a clever forgery that was later falsely linked to something he didn't know about but other similarly connected people did, or that he's actually telling the truth about something he encountered in his line of work? The simpler answer is likely to be closer to an explanation.

The unfortunate subtext of this thread is itself another fallacy, argumentum ad consequentiam: "what Vreeland and Ruppert are proposing cannot be true because it would be exceedingly unpleasant if it were."

Once again, we are faced with a matter of simplicity. To misquote bartcop (ooh, another exaggerator, right?), "Would greedy powerful men lie and kill to increase their influence and wealth?"

It does irk me somewhat that this forum gets so full of sub-100 posters who can do nothing but piss and moan about the integrity of others. I'll take it from the long-timers, but sheeit, isn't it basic netiquette to stick around for a while before impugning reputations? Oh well. 'Nuff said for now.

[Andy_Stephenson]

180. "directive to John O'Neil's outfit in Yemen to "back off the Saudis"

that directive came from none other than Barbara Bodine...you remember her right?

http://www.udel.edu/global/agenda/2002/bodinebio.html

Interim director of Iraq...short stay...only 10 days but hmmmmm.