Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Core of Corruption - possibly interesting 9/11 development (22 posts)

  1. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Please watch preview for new film series by one Jonathan Elinoff. Anyone know?

    "Mission Statement for Core of Corruption" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-435460631...

    You will recognize some of the footage and people shown, including moi. It's got several bits lifted from EGLS. Promise of a professional compilation, far as it goes. So far wise in tone and choice of people to forefront (emphases include: Sibel Edmonds, Shaffer, Steven Jones, Donna Marsh O'Connor), with an explicit rejection of disinformation at the start, but disturbing in what's indicated by the choice of allies... big tent city. (Maybe the Les footage is unwitting?)

    The home site's unsettling, naming infowars & WAC as "affiliates," talking about "New World Order."

    http://coreofcorruption.com/index.php

    I'd like to think the film will live up to the promise of the trailer rather than what's indicated by the site, but have no expectations.

    There are as we have seen so many ways to be screwed!

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    The mission statement video and teaser trailer are completely different. The mission statement video makes it look relatively responsible, while being a bit heavy on the pathos and self promotion, while the teaser trailer makes it look like some AJ crap.

    Here's the teaser trailer:

    http://coreofcorruption.com/index.php/?page_id=24

    And here's another video from Elinoff:

    Beginners Guide to the New World Order

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7817109040...

    I'm not optimistic.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    its a signature of alex jones to lift parts of other people's work - and claim it as his own - or fail to acknowledge the sources.

    i know Cosmos over at TruthAction has been quite upset over Jones' use of his work - while failing to credit the segments and mention the 11th of the Month actions.

    i of course will have to decide for myself if using parts of my film in conjunction with this project is worth the effort of publicly protesting. i really am reaching a point of not giving a shit about anything anymore.

    i have been getting bombarded with emails regarding this film - which i have been ignoring. but - if they are indeed lifting footage from my film - i guess i have to take a look. (yawn)

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. Victronix
    Member

    i have been getting bombarded with emails regarding this film

    Yeah, it looked like obvious spam to me from the multiple emails so I didn't even look and blocked it.

    Interesting how much of the text is linked to Jon Gold's site. Although it mentions AE911, STJ and Steven Jones, it has no links to any of them.

    The info seems like a jumble, not a coherent story.

    But I can't watch any of the video stuff at work. I looked up the guy and he was on Alex Jones at least 3 times, and with Jason Bermas. Bermas is the one that asked me who was paying me because I believe real planes hit the WTC towers . . . So, red flags.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    i've reviewed the trailer and the thing that bothers me the most is that he lifted entire segments of my film and used it as his own. there is no credit while the clips run, such as "clip courtesy of etc etc"

    this really is outright plagiarism.

    i will give him a polite chance to correct this. lets see how he responds.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    lifted entire segments of my film and used it as his own

    plagiarism is what people do in high school, and usually figure it out after that . . .

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. NicholasLevis
    Member

    while the teaser trailer makes it look like some AJ crap.

    Actually, if the AJ and WAC links weren't right next to it, I wouldn't necessarily think so.

    Trilateral Commission - Mena - BCCI - Dr. Graham - these are worthy subjects.

    I'm not optimistic that they will be done in a serious manner, mind you - I rarely am.

    The chosen associations, the wholesale lifting of uncredited footage, and the spam campaign raise flags, certainly. (Also, you can hardly say something like the video from CBS News about Osama in the Rawalpindi hospital on Sept. 10, 2001 is "never before seen footage!" True that it's never been in an online 9/11 video - wowzah. But it was on CBS!)

    Anyway, what's bothering me about this most at the moment is all its hype about new material, yet everything in the teaser is well-known (albeit worthy).

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. truthmover
    Administrator

    The second teaser trailer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCRngqHMC18&eur...

    In case you don't want to watch all of the above...its all a fairly elaborate presentation of mainstream news stories, supposedly complied by thousands of requests and years of followup. It appears as though, in its five parts, the movie is going to be attempting to reveal information fundamentally exposing the Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, international narco-terrorist, NWO conspiracy.

    A couple quotes from the Guide to NWO above:

    "As the release of the five part film series Core of Corruption draws near, over 2000 hours of video news segments will be released to the internet for the very first time. Most of these have never been available on the internet and haven't been seen since they aired. They are critical pieces of evidence; pieces of a puzzle."

    "A major shift is about to be made in the movement of truth and the revolution is going to be amplified. These news clips have been found, thanks to the universities, archives, production companies, and programs in place that backup every news segment."

    While I'm tempted to respond in the following manner...

    New Alex Jones film: "The Obama Deception" - Junk propaganda featuring Tarpley

    http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1415?replies=...

    ...I'm feeling more patient.

    First of all, whatever the intent, I think that this will be fun to watch for all the historical footage, which has value independent of its use. I also think that they shouldn't have included any footage from John's film without asking him. But watch out John! That might possibly be intended to get your goat.

    The most benign interpretation of intent, including the use of John's video along side a range of other prominent groups and media, could be that this project is meant to unify the movement behind the strength of the data they are about to reveal. And yet other than the mission statement, the promotion has a surprising lack of humility and a high degree of sensationalism.

    We could attribute that to youthful vigor or a pragmatic sense of how you get people's attention. But who's attention? Once again, with the exception of the mission statement, this all seems targeted at the choir. The ultimate revelation that will promote confidence in their political identity. There's some kind of 1984 vibe creeping in there.

    Another possible interpretation of the intent might be more promotional. We might not be so surprised that something coming from WAC/AJ/LC would be somewhere from less to more sensational. Perhaps this is both a genuine attempt to represent a view of the world that I happen not to agree with and also an attempt at gaining as much attention as possible at the expense of documentary objectivity.

    Unfortunately, some of the statements made in the promotion above erode my confidence in the responsibility of the producer. Despite the appeal of the mission statement, the other promotion goes too far in aggrandizing its own significance. Self-promotion is important, but it's always only a couple of steps away from irresponsible propaganda.

    So then do we think that the producer and those involved are just irresponsible people? Or do we think that they know fairly well what they are doing and why? I don't know enough about Elinoff to fairly speculate. But I'm not all that willing to assume that people able to make well produced, five part documentary, would get clueless the moment they start promoting it. The Bilderberg conspiracy angle immediately turns off a lot of people, and its not in all cases because they aren't familiar with deep politics.

    Ultimately, I figure that the movie series will be interesting to watch, contain a few facts that may be useful in some way, but will not be likely to unify or jump start the movement. It may not have much impact outside the movement. But it seems possibly designed to have greater impact within the movement.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. Duplicate

    Posted 15 years ago #
  10. While researching info on my searches, I came across this page talking about my trailers and saw your comments. I emailed John several months back asking for your permission to use some clips from EGLS and received a yes form you. I still have the email.

    I am not a sensationalist and a few "teaser" trailers out there have caused people to "hate" on me. I hope everyone waits until the movie is released. As for being on Alex Jones's show, of course. He asked me for interviews, and I accepted.

    As for acknowledging sources, I credit all sources throughout my film, however, most was shot myself or done myself. In fact, I was planning on calling John to talk about the trailer. I am confused as to why John would give me permission to use the clips, and then say I never asked, and then assume I wouldn’t credit him in my film. I am a good person with good intentions and this forum I read made me out to be something I am NOT. I am really insulted here. Why didn't you contact me with your concerns? Most don't credit or source in a trailer during the clip, I can add it in the side and I certainly will now. Have things changed?

    As for Alex Jones, please do not connect me to this guy. I am not Alex Jones and my films have no connection to him. As for links to other sites, we are still building out the site. I sense such tone on the forum that is so repulsive, I question what is going on here. I was intimidated by the FBI during the making of this project and have been threatened by many people, but never did I imagine that I would see this said about me or my films, which are not even out yet, on some forum from a bunch of people who have never met me, don't know anything about me or what my project has involved.

    As for giving me a polite chance to correct this, I checked back at the email and was under the impression you were out of the movement. Do you forget the request I made? I got your info from Jon Gold and you took forever to respond, only to say it was fine. As for the credit, I would be happy to through banners up and add it. Perhaps we can approach this in a different manner.

    I'd appreciate you clearing some of this up on that forum.

    I also never said it was "never before seen footage." It is footage that hasn't been available on the internet and I paid a lot of money to get this back online. I am working on building an online "history commons" style video news resource center for the movement. It is taking a lot of my time.

    I am really surprised to see all this negative commenting and talk about me and my films form strangers passing judgment on a few teasers.

    One comment had it right, finally as I read this someone has some optimistic and polite things to say, assuming that I am not a bad person. Thank you. here is the quote I like, finally:

    "The most benign interpretation of intent, including the use of John's video along side a range of other prominent groups and media, could be that this project is meant to unify the movement behind the strength of the data they are about to reveal. And yet other than the mission statement, the promotion has a surprising lack of humility and a high degree of sensationalism."

    And one last thing, in the 24 hours that the new trailer has been out, the one with John's footage that I DID receive permission to use, I noticed that the credit wasn't given and in fact was talking earlier to some of the co-producers and we decided that we go back and fix that. As for this forum, I am really confused as to the back talk and behind the scenes negative tone against me, a fellow friend and activist, who is here trying to make a difference. For your information, aside from the threats I have received, this project is dear to me. I have worked very hard and long on this and YES, I realize that the first teaser trailers were sensationalized, but they are TEASERS designed for buffs that don't pass judgment. Drop the egos, people. Wait until you see the film, not the trailers. We are releasing different trailers for different purposes. Some don't mind it as much. If I was sensationalizing the victims, that would be one thing. But those teasers are talking about a very large set of issues, way outside of 9/11. In fact, the information in those teasers is primarily on drug running, which is why we angled it in that manner. I apologize if I offended you in some way here, but lets move forward in a productive manner, and I HOPE you can watch my films and give it a chance, before the judgmental criticism continue on the internet from fellow "truthers."

    jeez. This was unexpected.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  11. i tried to edit the previous post, as you can see, I copied and pasted the email I sent to John. But the second post is re-worded

    Posted 15 years ago #
  12. please read description at the following links, credit is clearly given:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-435460631...

    http://coreofcorruption.com/index.php/?p=79

    http://coreofcorruption.com/index.php/?page_id=16

    Are there any more requests? Actually, I found this out by luck. I was searching "core of corruption" on google and wanted to see if anyone was talking about my film. The buzz is out, but here it was really negative. Next time, please contact me with your concerns. I would appreciate it, rather than see this go on behind my back with a bunch of strangers I've never met.

    PS - Be looking for more trailers soon, and I promise they won't be sensational. I notice people get offended by that. Thanks to Alex Jones, who I would appreciate it if you don't connect me to just for being invited on his show. Is there something wrong with getting on a show that has thousands of listeners?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  13. JohnA
    Member

    Hi Jon - I received your email this morning and have not had a chance to read thru these posts -

    But - suffice it to say i owe you a big apology. I do remember now someone contacting me thru Jon Gold requesting permission to use my footage - which i granted.

    So please accept my apology. you did in fact get my permission - and you may continue to do so - although i would appreciate noting my film in those sections where you are using those clips.

    i'm actually looking forward to seeing your film, and i would highly recommend TruthMove as my forum of choice for fact-checking. Many of the people here are among the oldest and most knowledgable members of the movement. they can help guide you thru this process - if you so desire.

    sorry for the confusion.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  14. truthmover
    Administrator

    Mr Elinoff,

    First of all, I don't generally say things here about people that I wouldn't say to them personally and my opinions have not at all changed based on what you say above. However, just like you, I'd prefer if you didn't over-reach in how you characterize what I've said.

    Second, this is just business. I know that you have put many hours into this, and assuming you are a sincere participant in the movement, I would understand why it might be frustrating finding that people have strong critiques of your work. But as John suggested, many of those here, more so than myself, are veterans of the movement and their comments are worthy of your consideration.

    Elinoff said:

    I am not a sensationalist and a few "teaser" trailers out there have caused people to "hate" on me. I hope everyone waits until the movie is released. As for being on Alex Jones's show, of course. He asked me for interviews, and I accepted.

    This statement seems an attempt to dismiss certain critical comments above by shrugging them off. Are you trying to suggest that you had nothing to do with the teaser trailers. Your statement above seems intended to put distance between you and them as though they were the product of hyperactive fans. You admit that people are having problems with the trailers and yet you don't suggest why and imply that you couldn't image the reason.

    I'm too deep into this movement to wait until the movie comes out before I start having concern for what you have on the table here. The promotion is its own entity, website, videos, spam messages, and that does reflect on the nature of the project and the character and intent of those promoting it. The wait and see attitude doesn't do this movement any good. And if your promotion makes the movie look like a certain product that it isn't, you've already alienated a certain part of your potential audience. Is this movie for NWO conspiracy fan boys or for a wider audience?

    And I have big problems with Alex Jones. If he wanted me to be on his show I would refuse, not that he's ever want that. There are many in the movement who do not have a positive opinion of him including me. Here's me on the subject and not feeling patient or collected.

    http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1415?replies=...

    As I suggest above, this project APPEARS to be aimed at the AJ fan base that I summarize at that link. And your past movie about the NWO feeds right into my assumption that share a lot in common with that set. So it seems natural that you would be on his show. He likes what you are producing. That's a red flag to me. I might understand taking advantage of his promotional machine while still thinking it imprudent as, to many, it colors the intent behind your new project.

    I am a good person with good intentions and this forum I read made me out to be something I am NOT. I am really insulted here. Why didn't you contact me with your concerns? Most don't credit or source in a trailer during the clip, I can add it in the side and I certainly will now. Have things changed?

    The issue with John seems to be resolved. Memory is fallible and mistakes happen. Skeptical people can get ahead of themselves. I doubt that comments on this forum could really very greatly impact the reach of your project. They don't show up in the top 20 on a Google search, for instance.

    And yes, you are most likely a good person with good intentions. I don't know you and have a well developed and prudent skepticism about anyone in the movement who produces a project with any reach. And I don't feel that my skepticism need be private. This forum is one in which we address issues in the movement that others find distasteful or might find offensive. Some of us intend to root out problems before they become emergencies.

    As for Alex Jones, please do not connect me to this guy. I am not Alex Jones and my films have no connection to him. As for links to other sites, we are still building out the site. I sense such tone on the forum that is so repulsive, I question what is going on here. I was intimidated by the FBI during the making of this project and have been threatened by many people, but never did I imagine that I would see this said about me or my films, which are not even out yet, on some forum from a bunch of people who have never met me, don't know anything about me or what my project has involved

    As I suggest above, you've already connected yourself with Alex Jones. He is the most explicit purveyor of the NWO conspiracy theory, you have touched on the same issue and been on his show several times. But it was not my intention to tie you to him. As I said, your movie will appeal most to his fans, and it may be that due to your own political and historical views that you don't see how much you limit your reach when you include this line of thinking which many here consider overly simple.

    I hope you have separate John's lapse of memory and my comments above. Sorry you are repulsed. It might do you some good to understand why we are concerned. As this is just business, I'm not so concerned with your repulsion. There is a difference in how I'd approach an average truther with your beliefs and someone producing a movie series that may have a big impact on the movement. You need to be ready to take a licking, and from people far less reasonable and thoughtful than those here.

    I also never said it was "never before seen footage." It is footage that hasn't been available on the internet and I paid a lot of money to get this back online. I am working on building an online "history commons" style video news resource center for the movement. It is taking a lot of my time.

    I can't find that quote above, and you have gone to some trouble to suggest that this is all going to be shockingly new. "A major shift is about to be made in the movement of truth and the revolution is going to be amplified." And that's not the only grandiose statement you make. As I suggest in the post above, I see a promotional intent behind these kind of statements that reminds me a lot of other WAC, AJ, and Loose Change promotions, none of which I consider particularly responsible. I do find your promotions to be sensationalistic.

    Further, while I have suggested in the post above that these clips will have value independent of your movie, and that makes me happy to hear that you are going to be making them available online, like Nick, none of those in the trailer are unfamiliar to me. I suppose you would say that I should wait for the movie. And I will certainly be watching it. But it's also fairly standard from a promotional standpoint to include a bit of the good stuff in the trailer. I remain interested yet skeptical.

    I am really surprised to see all this negative commenting and talk about me and my films form strangers passing judgment on a few teasers.

    This is asking for some sarcasm, but I'll keep things light. So, you are trying to suggest that you know nothing about the disagreements internal to the movement? And you are surprised that people who have been involved in this movement for years might have some reasons to be critical of your project? We don't know you personally, but once again, this is business. Some of the people here are movement elders, and are more than just strangers. And we have every right and even responsibility based on our experience to evaluate your promotional efforts and what they say about your project. We are all waiting to see the movie. You can expect a great deal more criticism at that point from many directions. And it may be that people here will love it and find their initial skepticism to be incorrect, in which case we would most likely say so. But this issue is far too serious to act like this is some kind of big mutual support group.

    For your information, aside from the threats I have received, this project is dear to me. I have worked very hard and long on this and YES, I realize that the first teaser trailers were sensationalized, but they are TEASERS designed for buffs that don't pass judgment. Drop the egos, people. Wait until you see the film, not the trailers. We are releasing different trailers for different purposes. Some don't mind it as much. If I was sensationalizing the victims, that would be one thing. But those teasers are talking about a very large set of issues, way outside of 9/11. In fact, the information in those teasers is primarily on drug running, which is why we angled it in that manner.

    Most of the people here have received threats of one kind or others. And most of the people here feel very committed in one way or another to the movement. Most of the people here have at one time or another worked very hard, maybe even harder than you, on advancing the movement.

    As I said, this is business. I can't imaging that anyone's ego is engaged in this critique. And as I said, we aren't going to wait to see the movie to evaluate what you have now confirmed to be sensationalistic promotion meant to target the choir more than create an aura of legitimacy.

    I apologize if I offended you in some way here, but lets move forward in a productive manner, and I HOPE you can watch my films and give it a chance, before the judgmental criticism continue on the internet from fellow "truthers."

    Business. No offense taken, and as John was quick to make clear, we are all ready to be wrong when we are. But I really think you are missing something significant about the movement if your think that truthers shouldn't criticize one another. That suggests a 'big tent' attitude that TruthMove and many of those who post here are firmly against. This is a movement of skepticism and critique. We might hope that we can be as civil toward one another as possible, and yet I consider my principles to be far more important than my associations. If you are wrong you are wrong, friend of foe. And if I'm wrong I'll admit it.

    Finally, I really do hope for the best here. I want your film to deliver on all the sensationalized promises the promotion has made. I just don't have much hope that someone subscribing to the NWO conspiracy is going to create a document that will appeal to the widest audience. The majority of people in this country think that stuff is nuts, and a lot more at this point than they think 9/11 truth is nuts. Realistically, I suspect that I will consider some of the parts of your series better than others.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  15. JohnA
    Member

    well - lets use this all as an opening to a dialogue.

    Two things do raise questions for me:

    • you mention in your post and email:

    I was intimidated by the FBI during the making of this project and have been threatened by many people, but never did I imagine... etc ctec

    Can you expand on this? Can you tell us the nature of this intimidation by the FBI? And may we ask who has been threatening you?

    • and - the very first few lines of your trailer talks about (and i am quoting from memory) that some people claim the movement is infiltrated by disinformation artists. i am curious why you chose to lead with this claim - and what your feelings are on this subject.
    Posted 15 years ago #
  16. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Mr. Elinoff,

    please don't get into hysterics or pretend naivete about the reality that people in a movement of skeptics will, naturally, receive most everything with skepticism. As they say in Missouri: Show me. Then I might like it. A fair reading of my own first post here should indicate to you that I am hopeful your film will be absolutely spectacular, just waiting on it. I indicate my personal reasons both for optimism and pessimism in this regard, but above all: waiting on it.

    Here's what I wrote again:

    You will recognize some of the footage and people shown, including moi. It's got several bits lifted from EGLS. Promise of a professional compilation, far as it goes. So far wise in tone and choice of people to forefront (emphases include: Sibel Edmonds, Shaffer, Steven Jones, Donna Marsh O'Connor), with an explicit rejection of disinformation at the start, but disturbing in what's indicated by the choice of allies... big tent city. (Maybe the Les footage is unwitting?)

    The home site's unsettling, naming infowars & WAC as "affiliates," talking about "New World Order."

    http://coreofcorruption.com/index.php

    I'd like to think the film will live up to the promise of the trailer rather than what's indicated by the site, but have no expectations.

    There are as we have seen so many ways to be screwed!

    Also, in response to the comment, "while the teaser trailer makes it look like some AJ crap."

    Actually, if the AJ and WAC links weren't right next to it, I wouldn't necessarily think so.

    Trilateral Commission - Mena - BCCI - Dr. Graham - these are worthy subjects.

    I'm not optimistic that they will be done in a serious manner, mind you - I rarely am.

    The chosen associations, the wholesale lifting of uncredited footage, and the spam campaign raise flags, certainly. (Also, you can hardly say something like the video from CBS News about Osama in the Rawalpindi hospital on Sept. 10, 2001 is "never before seen footage!" True that it's never been in an online 9/11 video - wowzah. But it was on CBS!)

    Anyway, what's bothering me about this most at the moment is all its hype about new material, yet everything in the teaser is well-known (albeit worthy).

    See that last bit? "Albeit worthy."

    Again, all this is mixed at worst - so don't overreact. I'm hoping to be floored, postively, honestly.

    Here on this site we have a very critical view, borne from painful experience, of Les Jamieson's "NY 911 Truth" hijack group, WAC, Alex Jones, and the LC series. But again, please wow us with a great, solid, fact-checked, logically argued film. We'll all be grateful if you do.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  17. JohnA
    Member

    i would view these comments as positive Jon.

    if legitimacy is your main concern - and you want to do this thing right - you could not ask for a better focus group to bounce your ideas off of.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  18. I never suggested or insinuated that the teasers weren't made by me. That was not said.

    What I am saying is that teaser trailers are supposed to be compelling, for movies of this magnitude. The teasers are not focusing on 9/11, which is why something as big as the "secret society" stuff is sensationalized.

    I have changed my marketing strategy anyway, but just making this clear.

    There was no spam. I don't spam. We don't have a double opt in email sign up and a few responses are coming back saying that other people are signing up emails. I don't know who is putting emails in my newsletter boc, but anyone can. Its a problem, because people are getting signed up without their consent. So please understand that I AM NOT SPAMMING, that I only send out to the emails on my list.

    Please wait until the movie comes out. I assure you you will be satisfied. The 2 teaser trailers are not on 9/11 as much as they are on the NWO stuff, which is why its compelling music. But for your information, YES, I have unearthed direct evidence that the NWO conspiracy is legitimate, I just have a different approach to it than most. As for the teaser trailers, they are NOTHING like my film style. I am trying to make back the money I spent, which was A LOT just on these clips I am surfacing. This movement is getting this for free, and I am to pay. I am trying to have an advertising campaign that gets people's attention, obviously I understand the first two trailers were sensationalized, but look at the topic covered in them.

    As for the trailer specific to the 1st film coming out, it will be out shortly and you can see the style of the series from that. I doubt I will recoup my investment in this project, but I have to try. You know, I am sure of it, that everyone downloads info and hands it out for free these days so I am probably not going to see much of my money return, but that's OK because I am doing this for the people. I just want the clips available online ot the public. My goal is to make a website that is search able, a database of news segments by topic like history commons. I think that would be a great resource to this movement.

    My "Beginner's Guide to the New World Order" is going to release exclusive new information. Like I said, watch the film. I am detailing and shedding all new angles and information. So please, give me a chance on this.

    I am not doubting the sensationalistic trailers, like I said, I hope you can recognize that I am trying to make my investment back through advertising. Either you understand this or not. As for the movement, my deepest respect to the families and the truthers. This is about trying to make back a lot of money, and I assure you, I spent a lot. A LOT.

    Most have not been offended by the advertising, but a few have said some things. I can't please everyone, but I will certainly try. I am changing the advertising campaign. As you can see form the latest trailer, the Mission Statement is to show people my intentions. So please, give it a chance.

    As for the threats, my lawyer dealt with them. I have the video will and clandestine recording Dr. David Graham made and the FBI was explaining to me that his death is an investigation that claims he "poisoned himself" and he was crazy. they insist on having me avoid that thread, but as my good friend Sander Hicks found out, it appears it was homicide. Graham was killed. he can out a Pakistani ISI connection, of the few that already exist in 9/11, to the 2 hijackers Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Midhar. I get into this in detail.

    As for the information in my film on Mumia Abu Jamal, he was framed in Philadelphia and the Black Panthers were set up. I don't get into detail on this but I tried to investigate it and received similar responses from the FBI. Insisting I was making a mistake and I need to ignore these angles. Why am I being told this by the FBI? Why are they contacting me? My lawyer seems to think I have raddled the cage and brought too much attention on me to soon.

    Anyway, I also get threats and intimidation from just regular people.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  19. JohnA
    Member

    YES, I have unearthed direct evidence that the NWO conspiracy is legitimate, I just have a different approach to it than most

    This is a very expansive claim, and is bound to invite ridicule. You have direct evidence that there is a NWO conspiracy? This claim is so broad as to be almost completely meaningless.

    If by “NWO conspiracy” you are implying that rich and powerful people from around the world are conspiring to consolidate their power and squeeze every last drop of profit out of the world’s remaining resources - to line their pockets – I agree.

    But of course the term “NWO conspiracy” has also become a liability to the 911 Truth movement in the embarrassingly adolescent way it has been used – and abused – by conspiracy theorists who seek to theorize in an irresponsible and cartoon-ish way about how and why the world works the way it does.

    Unfortunately, so far, your clips appear to be referring to the latter.

    My "Beginner's Guide to the New World Order" is going to release exclusive new information. Like I said, watch the film. I am detailing and shedding all new angles and information. So please, give me a chance on this.

    Exclusive new information? This is the second time that you make the claim that you are sitting on new evidence or information that proves a “NWO conspiracy.” This, again, seems like an incredible, improbable and sensationalistic claim. But – we will wait to see what you have.

    I hope you can recognize that I am trying to make my investment back through advertising.

    I can understand your desire to recoup your losses – but I can also tell you from experience that SELLING exclusive information and evidence such as this tends to discredit your efforts. Any ‘for profit’ effort to sensationalize 9/11 – and link it to NWO conspiracies will automatically close people’s minds to the content. I too spent quit a bit of money to make and present my film, but – I never attempted to turn it into a business.

    I also hope that you realize that it is illegal to sell DVDs that contain footage from news programming that you have not secured the copyrights on.

    As for the threats, my lawyer dealt with them. I have the video will and clandestine recording Dr. David Graham made and the FBI was explaining to me that his death is an investigation that claims he "poisoned himself" and he was crazy. they insist on having me avoid that thread, but as my good friend Sander Hicks found out, it appears it was homicide. Graham was killed. he can out a Pakistani ISI connection, of the few that already exist in 9/11, to the 2 hijackers Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Midhar. I get into this in detail.

    Gee – aren’t you afraid for your own safety? If Graham was killed for the reasons you claim – and you have proof “Mumia Abu Jamal was framed” and “the Black Panthers were set up” (all incredible claims to be making) wouldn’t you be walking a very thin line by presenting this evidence yourself?

    Regarding Sander Hicks – I think you will be extremely hard pressed to find anyone here who respects his work and/or efforts. In fact, he has connected himself to and presented the work of Dr Fetzer and Nico Haupt – as well as disrupting past 9/11 events with highly sensationalized appearances and self-aggrandizing publicity stunts. My own exposure to Hicks goes back as far as 2003 when he single handedly disrupted and destroyed a highly-publicized 9/11 Truth event in which Scott Ritter agreed to speak.

    Based on the above I do have problems accepting your credibility.

    But – we shall see what revelations your film hold – and I believe there will be no shortage of responses upon its release.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  20. JohnA
    Member

    I see there is a lively conversation on TruthAction regarding the newest Pentagon witness harassment campaign. (yawn)

    given the circular logic employed in those debates - i fail to understand why CIT-based nonsense is not, at this point, relegated to the same scrabble heap of failed theories as 'no planes' and "DEW" - and banned.

    It seems the CIT debates ALWAYS evolve into the same personalized attacks and disruption techniques.

    anywho...

    It is interesting to note that Jonathan Elinoff of Core of Corruption fame is sending out spam emails on this newest attack campaign against one particular 9/11 witness. The email itself is full of very disturbing comments implying that the life and safety of this witness (whose name i will not repeat) is in danger.

    and - of course - the evidence presented is tissue thin, consisting of assumptions derived from out-of-context quotes by the witness.

    This is one particular avenue of 9/11 Truth disruption that i find particularly repugnant - attacking witnesses and attempting to make them feel that their safety is at risk. we saw this very same technique used to attack witnesses in NYC. same tactics. same results: making 9/11 Truth look dangerously irreponsible.

    what a vile approach this to disruption this is.

    i guess the 'benefit of the doubt' Elinoff was afforded by posters here has now officially been squandered.

    Harassing witnesses - by name - and speculating that they may be killed - goes FAR beyond what is acceptable and responsible behavior - and Elinoff is either showing profoundly bad judgment - or is intentionally defaming those who seek legitimate answers to legitimate questions.

    Shame on Elinoff.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  21. emanuel
    Member

    Mr. Elinoff,

    Can you tell us who else you consulted with, besides Sander Hicks, on the making of this film? Who did you speak to on the phone, for example? How about emails you are willing to make public? These things will go a long way to giving your film credibility.

    Emanuel

    Posted 14 years ago #
  22. emanuel
    Member

    Opps. I didn't realize this thread was three months old. I should read them completely before I chime in. Admins, you can delete this and my previous response above. I have no desire to encourage Mr. Elinoff to come back here.

    Emanuel

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.