So the Wikileaks cables: Nothing supporting 9/11 Truth yet, huh?

[Bolo Boffin]

Wonder why that is?

[BeFree]

1. Well

What, in your opinion, would be something?

We know bushco lied to us before and after 9/11.
We know bushco knew.
We know bushco benefited greatly from the resultant wars.

We know SA benefited greatly from the resulting wars.

So, what would it take to get someone who is anti-Truth to open up a bit?

[BeFree]

9. I see

So far what has come out is just supportive of the Truth theories.
Batting a pretty good average already.

I wonder what you guys will do when another 9/11 nail gets hammered?
So far every hammered nail has being bent three ways to Sunday by the OCTers.
It has been amusing to watch. And sad.

[terrafirma]

2. Silly, Bolo....

We all know the PTB won't discuss black-ops via top secret communiques.

They prefer to just come out and expose themselves in public ala Rumsfeld.

/sarcasm

[zappaman]

3. or

putting it on the internet themselves...like when the PNAC mentioned "a new pearl harbor"

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. Could it be because they haven't released anything from 2001 or 2002..

and only one document (so far) from 2003? Maybe because they've only released 291 documents out of 251,287?

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Well, time will tell.

Let's all watch and find out.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. That sounds like the most reasonable course of action to take, doesn't it?

Personally, I would be surprised if there was anything there... I won't be disappointed if there isn't.

Peace...

[seatnineb]

5. Do some research:

In the words of Assange:

I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Oh, so now Assange is also suppressing 9/11 Truth!

Thanks for that.

[spooked911]

12. of course-- wikileaks is a classic limited hangout operation

don't expect any deep truth from them

[jberryhill]

19. Crap... I was hoping for new info on the alien blockade of earth

[zappaman]

20. don't be so sure

I have it on good authority that WIKILEAKS will be informing us about the alien quarantine shortly...

[seatnineb]

57. There is more chance of that happening than you being able

to substantiate your anonymouse mate's testimony regarding his experience seeing the plane hitting the WTC on 9/11.

LOL

[spooked911]

25. sorry, but that info is

much more classified.

[zappaman]

27. really?

then how do YOU know?

[spooked911]

31. Logic

based on everything I've read about UFOs

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[zappaman]

42. "wikileaks is a classic limited hangout operation"

care to support that?
or is it just a feeling on your part?

[mrarundale]

67. Yeah, leakers evading Interpol don't pose for photo-ops

and grant interviews. And who in their right mind would "leak" stuff to JA? and put themselves at risk? Unless they have an agenda (like targeting people, distracting from real news, etc...)

[tetedur]

13. You obviously do not understand the importance of the

Wikileaks release of documents. Your attempt to conflate the revelations of those documents with 9/11 is a classic strawman.

It is so typical and so pathetic.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. On the contrary, I do understand the importance of the Wikileaks release.

And the absolute lack of any information confirming 9/11 Truth suspicions makes me understand the relative importance of 9/11 Truth quite well, indeed.

[deconstruct911]

15. I can't get into Wikileaks

I haven't used it before but the wikileaks.org page wont open for me. Since you brought it up I was curious if the site mentions anything about the drug trade in Afghanistan re money laundering?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Other people on Twitter have said the same today.

They were in the process of switching servers, I think, since they were having so many DOS attacks.

I do know one of the cables was an interview with Hamid Karzai's brother Ahmed, widely considered to be a narcotics trafficker. You can find that interview at the various newspapers hosting cables, but Ahmed just denies his involvement.

[deconstruct911]

17. Well so did Oliver North.

I typed into Google "Wikileaks opium" and this was the first hit: http://newsbyphotos.com/2010/07/27/wikileaks-globalists-profit-500-billion-year-afghan-opium-trade/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXRsnvpLjw&feature=channel

And according to Wikileaks the ISI is involved with Al Qaeda, so maybe the guys over at wikileaks aren't big on connecting dots.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Yes, Ahmed and Ollie have several things in common. n/t

[deconstruct911]

23. Maybe one day he will host a show on fox too.

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Why not! If he can toe the Republican right wing li(n)es, he should.

Then Ailes could tout his network's diversity!

[immune]

39. Republican right wing?

Isn't that a little redundant? Is there a republican left wing that has so far escaped our notice?

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Well, there are Republicans that come closer to the sanity line than others. n/t

[felixq78]

74. Assange & 911

The real worry is Assange's reported attitude towards 911, he seems to be underrating its importance while it is the lynch-pin of the whole middle eastern invasion.

[deconstruct911]

75. Ironic that he claims to expose financial fraud

like money laundering? but hes sold on the oct.

[seatnineb]

55. Why are you thanking me for something you already knew..

[Bolo Boffin]

56. I am thanking you for jumping in with both feet on a position I felt certain someone would take.

Bravo.

[seatnineb]

58. say hi to Julian for me...i am sure he would appreciate the

..sterling job you do around these parts.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. I'm sure Julian would be happy someone was trying to keep people out of a non-productive

9/11 Truth ditch and focusing on the real information he's exposing. After all, he considers 9/11 to be a "false conspiracy," his words.

[seatnineb]

60. Is that what he told you---LOL!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

62. I've made no claims about knowing Julian Assange. n/t

[seatnineb]

65. Umm ..it was a joke.

But keep on believing in wikishit.

[felixq78]

73. Assange & 911

His devaluation of the 911 truthers tells us what?
His comments were fairly general, he didn't qualify them so we can only assume one thing, he thinks the whole 911 truth movement isn't relevant.
If he hadn't made any comments or said they hadn't received any files relating to 911 that would have been OK BUT he did speak out and I didn't like what he's reported to have said.
He's either 1. a complete moron, 2. he's a gate keeper for the people responsible or 3. he's being manipulated.
He's not stupid so that rules out 1 & 3.
The whole middle east invasion by the US HINGES on the 911 attack so how can he discard the issue.
I smell a RAT.

[jberryhill]

10. They are coming... after the chemtrails and UFO's....

[noise]

11. Maybe you haven't paid attention

the past few years but some of us have. 9/11 Commission MFR's which deal with FBI/CIA sharing issues in relation to al-Hazmi and al-Midhar are still classified. I checked with NARA not too long ago and they are soon going to upload an MFR with former FBI agent Ali Soufan. The catch is that this MFR is from November and has no information about the sharing issues. Those MFR's will remain classified.

A government acting in good faith would have released these records years ago.

[travis80]

21. I still see the skeptics are obsessed with truthers

I hope they seek help soon for their obsession. Nine years of obsessing over truthers is waaaaaaay beyond normal.

[zappaman]

22. 9 years of obsessing/promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories

is waaaaaaay beyond normal.

[spooked911]

26. Not really-- when you think of the incredible ramifications that 9/11 being an inside job entails.

Debunking stuff you consider silly-- not such big ramifications.

See the difference?

[travis80]

24. I'm a perp and I'm going to transfer data that exposes my conspiracy

through channels were non-conspirator government employees will be able to read it.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. Wait...

You're baiting us, right?

Gosh, I just knew I'd get that one right!

[JackRiddler]

29. Won't find that in the phone book, either.

Why would one expect such a thing in State Department cables classified no higher than secret and made available to 3 million users in the last 10 years?

[jberryhill]

30. Well, if Larry Silverstein can confess in an NPR interview

Then something limited to 3 million people is pretty much "among friends".

[JackRiddler]

33. How is that an answer to the question?

What may be thought elsewhere about Silverstein's "pull it" comment to PBS* is completely irrelevant to the OP question, or to my response and counter-question.


...

* Not NPR, if that's the interview you meant.

[jberryhill]

34. Where is this "elsewhere" of which you speak?

[JackRiddler]

44. Elsewhere would be "outside the bounds of the question posed by the OP," i.e., distraction.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. We are often told that conspirators reveal the conspiracy in interviews and the like.

That means that these conspirators feel free enough to talk about the conspiracy in the open.

That means there should be some references to the 9/11 conspiracy committed by the federal government in their cables.

But, alas! Thus far there is nothing.

I can't tell you how much it pains me that you don't recognize this argument as valid. I believe a bit of pillow-biting is in order, if you'll excuse me.

[deconstruct911]

36. I think you're looking for Hollywood

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

37. So wanting logical consistency in the 9/11 Truth Movement's positions is "looking for Hollywood."

Perhaps so.

[deconstruct911]

41. No

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpTuOpnt70

[zappaman]

43. OMG!

Finally proof!!!!
One of my best friends is buddies with Shane Black, the writer of that movie.
I'll get him to find out if Shane is actually an undercover operative or something.
Stay tuned!

[deconstruct911]

46. maybe

he simply heard of Emad Salem? Make sure to ask!

[deconstruct911]

102. Are the results in? nt

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Ghost in the Machine]

64. "I believe a bit of pillow-biting is in order, if you'll excuse me."

Sorry, but we aren't interested in your sex life, could you please stick the subject?


"That means there should be some references to the 9/11 conspiracy committed by the federal government in their cables.

But, alas! Thus far there is nothing."

And you're still pushing this bullshit talking point with only 931 cables published, out of 251,287 that are available? What a joke! It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic...

[immune]

45. The Guardian gave State Dept. cables to the NY Times

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101129/ts_yblog_thecutline/guardian-editor-says-they-gave-cables-to-the-ny-times

Kinda reminds me of the intelligence reports about the Niger yellow cake.

And from what I've heard, many of the "leaks" are a neocon's sweetest dream ... bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

And if that's the purpose, why would he/they expose 9/11 as being an inside job?

Counterintuitive.

[Ter]

48. Some secrets are far too secret to get to

Not saying I believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, but if it were true, it's likely a greater kept secret than a possible JFK conspiracy. No way Wiki can get to that.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Greater than Hamas saying it could accept the 1967 borders?

Greater than the way America has been browbeating many countries into not prosecuting the CIA for torturing their citizens without making goddamn sure they had the right person?

Greater than the CIA torturing citizens of other countries before saying, whoops, wrong person?

You must be joking.

[eomer]

51. Offtopic, but torture is illegal, immoral, and counter-productive even if you have the right person.

Don't want to start a long offtopic subthread so I probably won't reply to a reply, but would be interested in knowing whether you agree.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Yes, I agree with that. n/t

[Ter]

52. I don't see how these equate

Yes, they are greater kept secrets. Much, much greater (if they are even true at all).

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Of course you don't. n/t

[Ter]

63. And of course you would

Apples and oranges are different. A private taped conversation is not the same as UFO files or 9/11 secrets (like I said, if they are even covered up at all).

[mrarundale]

49. Nothing supporting ANY kind of truth

for a good example check out the Kenya three days before the election Kroll "leak", use your best analytical skills....oh wait....

[deconstruct911]

61. Kroll "leak"

How ironic.

[mrarundale]

66. uh-huh

To me, it's so obviously staged.

[pauldp]

68. Actually that's not true. The revelations about the ISI support OCT skeptics

who think the ISI manipulates Sunni Terrorists - Taliban/Al Qaeda etc. in Afghanistan and elsewhere for the benefit
of those who profit from the WOT.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. That's not something exclusive to 9/11 Truth.

You can think ISI manipulates Sunni extremists and not believe a lick of 9/11 Truth fairy tales.

Is it also part of 9/11 Truth that the sky was blue that Tuesday?

[pauldp]

70. You didn't say it had to be exclusive. Oh, and the CIA funding the ISI isn't 911 exclusive either.

You've seen "Press for Truth", you know people who want the truth about 911 think the ISI may have been involved in 911.
What is universally "part of 911 truth" is a desire to cut through all of the lies we've been told. If it seems the ISI may have been involved in 911
then info showing their financial and tactical support of terrorists would support the notion that the Times of India story about the ISI and 911 is correct.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. 9/11 Truth being some nebulous catch-all for a lot of people isn't my problem.

I'm talking (as is Assange) about the actual attacks on 9/11. I'm aware that many in the movement latch on to other pieces of different puzzles to lend support to their own ideas.

Demonstrating that the ISI manipulates terrorists gets the 9/11 Truth Movement not one step closer to proving their notions about how the attacks actually happened, much less showing that the United States government (or the Israeli government) was complicit in those attacks by either allowing them to happen or making them happen as a false flag attack.

[CJCRANE]

72. Only 1% of the cables have been released

and we know already that they're on the level of a 'limited hangout'. Despite the protestations of the administration I think they know they can weather the storm.

But I do think some of the cables support the general themes of 9/11 truth: of secret agendas and deals, and of private warmongering.

[Bonobo]

76. Why would there be?

You think the State Dept. is in the business of showing its dirty laundry?

I am glad to see that your critical thinking skills are about at the level I thought.

[greyl]

77. Please bone up on your WikiLeaks knowledge here:

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/

[Swampguana]

78. Wikileaks didn't reveal anything of any significance

so why would there be anything about 911?
pointless question Bolo

[apocalypsehow]

79. Nonsense: it was an excellent question. And the answer is: "9-11 Truth" is a fraud. Therefore,

Wikileaks will have little, if anything, of knowledge that we already don't know about the events of September 11, 2001, since the well-established facts have already been revealed in the government's official investigation. There is no MIHOP or LIHOP: those are theories bereft of the slightest scrap of credible fact or evidence.

That's why Wikileaks has shed nothing new on the events of that day, not because there actually is "anything of significance" about 9/11 hidden away in a sooper-sekrit CIA vault somewhere, waiting to be revealed. We know everything of significance about 9/11 already. Period.

[Swampguana]

80. you failed to provide something significant wikileaks revealed

so answer that to make bolo's question excellent otherwise it's a pointless question

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

83. Bullshit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026591-503543.html?tag=pop

Just one thing reprinted here from that article: "Iranian Red Crescent ambulances were used to smuggle weapons to Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group during its 2006 war with Israel, according to the leaked U.S. diplomatic memos."

That link is full of revelations from the Wikileaks cables - highly significant.

Very pointed and relevant question here, Swampguana. Think about it.

[Swampguana]

97. bullshit, bullshit

Smuggling some weapons being revealed isn't a very large secret to be revealed, what's said about other world leaders behind their backs isn't either. Nothing that wikileaks showed is anywhere near as substantial as 911. If there was something even remotely close you might have a point but you don't. If you really think "That link is full of revelations from the Wikileaks cables - highly significant." explain why and how its so significant.

[rschop]

81. re: So the Wikileaks cables: Nothing supporting 9/11 Truth yet, huh?

Because all of the information is already in the public domain, information that proves that the CIA working with groups at FBI HQ that they had subjugated had deliberately and intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place by shutting down FBI criminal investigations that would have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. You don't have evidence that CIA deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen.

You have evidence of turf wars.

[noise]

85. Turf wars?

Did the CIA/FBI turf war magically come to an end in late August '01?

Was Corsi in a turf war with the criminal side agents?

The only reason we don't have the details of what happened is because of government secrecy.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. That's what you've got: turf wars. "The CIA deliberately allowed 9/11" isn't what you've got.

Stop erecting straw men and look soberly at what evidence you have.

[noise]

87. I gave you two sound reasons why a turf battle explanation doesn't ring true

Here is another:

If CIA officials hated the FBI and Clarke (at the NSC) to the point of noncooperation then why didn't they thwart the plot themselves? According to the turf war theory the CIA preferred to violate standard procedure by withholding information from the agency with US counterterrorism jurisdiction. So why didn't they run their own illegal surveillance/apprehension operation and grab all the glory?

[Bolo Boffin]

88. You are wishing in one hand and spitting in the other.

And one wet hand isn't getting you any closer to proving "The CIA deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen." But if it makes you happy...

[rschop]

92. re: You don't have evidence that CIA deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen., You have evidence of turf

wars;

There appears no documentation anywhere that documents when information was withheld from the FBI USS Cole bombing investigators this was due to a turf war. There is however much documentation that documents that the CIA working with FBI HQ agents and managers that they had subjugated, criminally withheld material information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing to hide their criminal culpability in allowing the bombing of the USS Cole.

Since this criminal conspiracy to hide information from the FBI USS Cole bombing investigators started in earnest at the very same time the CIA found out that they had been culpable in allowing the bombing of the USS Cole, it is clear that this criminal conspiracy to withhold this information from the FBI Cole investigators was primarily due to the CIA wanting to hide their criminal culpability in allowing the Cole bombing.

This is detailed in email between these FBI HQ agents and the FBI field agents on the Cole bombing:

In email back to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, and head of the USS Cole bombing investigation at the New York FBI filed office, on August 29, 2001, FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi stated that “if substantial evidence is developed of a federal crime”, (by Mihdhar and Hazmi), this information will be passed over the “WALL”. Corsi claimed that the NSA information she was given by the CIA could not be given to the FBI Cole bombing investigators due to the "WALL".

This literally is the smoking gun, the proof that FBI HQ Agent Corsi, the CIA and the FBI HQ knew that any evidence of a crime immediately nullified the "WALL". This one statement proves that FBI HQ knew they had no legal right to either withhold information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, or shut down their investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi already had used in her EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the NSA cable that had been based on a telephone tap of a conversation from the telephone number for the communications center for the east Africa al Qaeda bombings. This connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi not only to the al Qaeda terrorist organization, and the many crimes they had already carried out, but directly to the east Africa bombings that had murdered over 200 people including 12 Americans.

This was clear substantial evidence of a Federal crime.

She also knew that Walid Bin Attash, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting actually planning the Cole bombing, yet another crime that had killed 17 US sailors.

This was more clear substantial evidence of another Federal crime.

So Corsi already had multiple examples of substantial evidence of federal crimes, information she, the FBI HQ, and the CIA had been hiding from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team.

The people who were withholding this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing and who shut down Bongardt's investigation when he found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, knew exactly what they were doing. This was not due to any failure of individuals to understand, or due to any turf war, but due to criminal actions by individuals at the CIA and FBI HQ to criminal obstruct an on going FBI criminal investigation.

Corsi had already been given a release by the NSA when she told Bongardt that he had to stop his investigation because of NSA restrictions, removed by this release.

Corsi fabricated NSLU FBI Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling telling Bongardt that he and his team could not take part in an investigation of Mihdhar, when even the 9/11 Commission report makes it clear that Sabol had ruled that Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar.

Corsi tells Bongardt that if there is substantial evidence of a federal crime, this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi will be passed over "the WALL" when she had proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in several crimes that had already killed scores of Americans. To claim that was due to a misunderstanding of the “WALL” or to a turf war was a cover up of criminal activity at both the CIA and FBI HQ, and is in line with many other examples that the 9/11 Commission was covering up massive criminal activity at both the FBI HQ and CIA that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The CIA had forbidden CIA officer, Tom Wilshire twice in July from turning any information on Kuala Lumpur over to FBI criminal investigators. Rod Middleton, Corsi's boss, had been given the photo of Walid Bin Attash by the CIA on August 30, 2001, connecting both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. Yet he did not alert Bongardt when he now had clear photographic evidence that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing and tell him to immediately start a criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, particularly when he had been on the phone on August 28, 2001 with Corsi shutting down Bongardt’s investigation.

This clearly shows that many higher level managers at “both” the CIA and FBI HQ had been involved in criminally withholding material information from Bongardt’s investigation and then in illegally shutting down Bongardt’s investigation when they were aware this was criminal obstruction. But even worse, both the CIA and FBI HQ had to know when they shut down the only real investigating team that could have stopped Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent the al Qaeda attacks they had been warned about, that their actions would result in the murder of thousands of Americans.

After researching thousands of pages, there appears next to nothing documenting any turf war that would explain why the CIA or FBI HQ withheld material information from FBI field agents in the investigation of the bombing of the USS Cole. When the CIA and FBI HQ knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US, knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, knew they were inside of the US in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack, and even knew that by shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, thousands of Americans would be killed as a direct result of their actions to shut down Bongardt’s investigation, to claim that the CIA or FBI HQ would let thousands of Americans be murdered because of some supposed turf war makes no sense.

[apocalypsehow]

93. Strange - a "criminal conspiracy" with no indictments, no arraignments, no trials, no convictions.

Oddest "criminal conspiracy" I've ever run across....

Normally - i.e., in my encounters with reasonable assertions/claims and their authors - this would be the point where I would point out that the definition of a "criminal conspiracy" is a legal one, not a "type a bunch of disjointed speculations up on a message board" one. A legal one with strict rules of statutory definition. I would further point out that your reply fails on that factual basis alone.

I won't bother here because it's a waste of time, naturally, to talk reason & facts with the content of your reply above (especially considering the likely response), but I would ask you to confirm this: you do maintain that the reason Corsi wasn't prosecuted for "criminal conspiracy" was simply a function of the 9-11 "cover-up" you believe to have occurred, correct?

This is a simple yes or no question: you can spare us the paragraph-laden expository sermon (though I doubt you will). Thanks.

[rschop]

94. re This is a simple yes or no question, you do maintain that the reason Corsi wasn't prosecuted for

re: This is a simple yes or no question, you do maintain that the reason Corsi wasn't prosecuted for "criminal conspiracy"

Yes, pretty obvious isn't it, considering the massive evidence of a criminal conspiracy!

You have yet to disprove even one single point brought up in prior posts!

[apocalypsehow]

95. "Yes," huh? Interesting. I don't think you've thought that answer through. Or its implications -

especially when it comes to the core claims involved in so-called "9-11 Truth."

Might want to rethink that one, rs.

[JackRiddler]

89. The responses on this thread display the Dungeon's clash of the sophistries.

The State Department cables are classified no higher than "Secret." The SIPRnet system on which they were stored was established after 9/11 (and therefore has relatively little material on the period before) and was accessible to an estimated 300,000-600,000 users at any given time. Therefore these documents are very interesting in exposing how the empire is managed, but would contain little to no information about covert operations or intelligence, whether relating to the events of 9/11 or not. Where the interesting stuff is likely to be on 9/11 is also known, and it's not at the State Department but at the Pentagon and CIA. We don't even know most of what's in the cables yet because so far less than 1 percent have been published online. Not that these have not already substantiated many stories of criminal government, abuses of secrecy, arrogant imperialist policy and corporate malfeasance.

Someone who probably knows all that very well can't resist the temptation to pretend that the absence of 9/11-related material proves a negative, presumably to tweak the other side.

On the other side of this hilarious false dichotomy, the OP finds its complement in equally irrational statements about what's not in the cables. If the Wikileaks documents don't have the 9/11 goods, it can only be because Assange is One of THEM and the whole thing is a psyop -- in fact, a psyop to continue the 9/11 cover-up!

These two sophistries fit each other symbiotically. Since about 2004 or so the Dungeon has been a field for sport between two teams busy setting up ridiculous strawmen for each other to knock down. Sometimes I drop in for the lulz.

.

9/11 truth, meaning not the cause for skepticism about the OCT but the "movement" hijacked by the Loose Change/Alex Jones/WAC mentality and the ridiculous no-planes disinformation, is dead. A sure sign is its complete absence in even noting the new struggle for truth, disclosure, press freedom and the free Internet now embodied in the Wikileaks affair.

.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. " little to no information about covert operations or intelligence" As ever, Jack: bullshit.

Check out my link above.

ETA: Oh, and your little "above it all" game is so amusing to watch. When pressed, you support exactly the same kinds of 9/11 Truth foolishness you deride.

[JackRiddler]

91. Whatever. The cables are big, the release is spectacular, but not everything can be in there.

In lieu of a long debate about how to characterize the amount of covert op and militarily sensitive intel in the cables, let's just call my phrasing above faulty, and go straight to "some, maybe lots, but not all." And, of course, "let's wait for the other 99 percent to be published and see." (At the current rate this will take 13 or 20 years, but maybe Julian and Co. can step on the gas a bit.)

Classification is obviously imprecise, contingent, political, and promiscuous, so there'll be some "Top" stuff in the merely "Secret," and no doubt plenty of nothing in the "Top Secret," but the cables aren't supposed to have any Top Secret (or above). The point still applies: not everything is or could be in the cables.

Above "Secret" there are compartments that don't even know of each others' existence, currently an $80 billion world of black budget programs, most of it going to private contractors who often have independent business in addition to what they do for the government, all of it rife with revolving-door networks, profiteers and cabals. "Top Secret America" as the Washington Post described it last summer is a big field for hidden riot and abuse. No doubt much of its workings will peek through in the cables, more often in indications rather than explicit descriptions of whole programs.

Meanwhile, if Spooked would also come over and insult me, I can feel fulfilled.

[Bonobo]

103. Someone got the feewings hewt... lol

[Bonobo]

101. Beautiful post. I tried to point out the same thing albeit less well.

There is no reason for anything that would reveal true secrets to be contained within cables sent by the State Dept. but the other side was too busy using its lack to make hay (as if absence of evidence were evidence of absence!)

Thanks for this extremely well-thought out -and thus misplaced- post.

The sophistry on both sides is the reason that I would like this dungeon opened. I think that the wisdom of the larger DU population would help to eradicate much of the extremism on both sides.

[eridani]

96. Huffpo says that 500K text messages from government employees were released

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/25/911-text-messages-release_n_370085.html

Email Comments 1,008 Government employees sent more than 500,000 text pager messages In the hours before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At 3 a.m. (EST) Wednesday, November 25, those intercepted messages will be published online at Wikileaks. The messages will be published at the same times that they were originally sent on 9/11.

Wikileaks, a journalistic endeavor that promotes better government through transparency , says that the messages were intercepted by a organization that has been archiving US telecommunications prior to 9/11. Wikileaks says that the sources of the messages range from Pentagon employees to messages sent by the NYPD, and even automated messages relayed by computers to their operators.

Below are examples of what Wikileaks will publish. Visit their site for more information.

[greyl]

98. WikiLeaks: FBI hunts the 9/11 gang that got away ( i.e. terrorists did 9/11)

WikiLeaks: FBI hunts the 9/11 gang that got away
The FBI has launched a manhunt for a previously unknown team of men suspected to be part of the 9/11 attacks, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

The details of the secret 9/11 team have emerged in a secret American government document obtained by the Wikileaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph. It was sent between the American Embassy in Doha and the Department for Homeland Security in Washington.

The document, sent on 11th February 2010, states: “Mr Al Mansoori is currently under investigation by the FBI for his possible involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks. He is suspected of aiding people who entered the US before the attacks to conduct surveillance of possible targets and providing other support to the hijackers.”

The cable states: “Hotel cleaning staff grew suspicious of the men because they noticed pilot type uniforms, several laptops and several cardboard boxes addressed to Syria, Jerusalem, Afghanistan and Jordan in the room on previous cleaning visits.

“The men had a smashed cellular phone in the room and a cellular phone attached by wire to a computer. The room also contained pin feed computer paper print outs with headers listing pilot names, airlines, flight numbers, and flight times.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8296860/WikiLeaks-FBI-hunts-the-911-gang-that-got-away.html

[go west young man]

99. Wonder if Bolo wants to enjoy a crow sandwich today?

[SDuderstadt]

100. How does the Wikileaks revelation support...

9/11 "Truth"? If anything, it provides support for the so-called "OCT".

This is not your "gotcha" moment, dude. Far from it.

[Bonobo]

104. Questioning of the official story cannot be squeezed into one catch-all phrase (aka 9/11 'truth')

Although I understand why you use that particular device to increase the perceived value of your own position.

It is an old tactic but easily spotted.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Read the subject line of....

the OP.

[Bonobo]

106. Yes, the OP title is also guilty of this type of monolithic thinking.

Believing that the full truth has not been disclosed and that there were most likely black op type links with the 'terrorists' hardly falls into the same category as believing that a missile was shot into the pentagon or that there was no airplane at the towers, etc.

The attempt to paint all people on 'the other side' as belonging to a monolithic group of nut-jobs is intellectually lazy.

[Larry L. Burks]

107. Link?

If they did 9/11 to steal money and put in offshore bank accounts.

Did n’t some banker get his hand on the files of the off shore bank accounts and send it in to be posted on the net.

Sure they did.. I wonder who’s names are on it?