From the introduction of the Big Wedding written by Anthony Lappé:
Shortly after Hicks's Vreeland story ran on GNN's website, a family friend-a life-long CIA officer-contacted him. They talked about what HIcks had found. He casually inquired if Hicks had ever had any interest in working for the Company.
The friend said Hicks had some skills they could put to use. Hicks declined the offer. He's a guerilla operative for the people, not the secret elite.
The NYCCAN legal memo that the judge is reading . . .
http://nyccan.org/NYC_CAN_Files_Legal_Memo.php
My comments on blogger --
Thanks for pointing to that memo.
Overall it looks good, but why on earth would ANYONE reference "Rense" as a source for a comment made by an official? You'd have to have no idea what is on Rense to ever reference them, or not care, which is sad given how almost all of the rest of it is very careful to avoid nonsense references or claims. The exact same comment is available in Newsweek.
And to include the phrase "AA77 allegedly hit the Pentagon" pretty much tanks credibility . . . .
Wow, it even cites George Nelson! Nelson questions the involvement of all 4 planes . . .
"According to Colonel George Nelson, Former U.S. Air Force Aircraft Investigator, “In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident…The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.â€"
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy stuff.
Nelson has been all over the missile/pod forums arguing that real planes weren't used. Who ever wrote this memo should never have cited him.
Granted, the judge won't understand or make the connection in just these few days, most likely, but if this goes through, this will be a permanent and important document, and it makes the rest of us look idiotic when that kind of stuff is in there.
Also referenced in there, Physics911.net hosts essays by a number of people claiming real planes never hit the WTC and that an A3 Skywarrior was used at the Pentagon, among other nonsense. We are so past that . . . it's really sad that people are linking to that in such an important document. You can go read essays by Morgan Reynolds there, about how cartoons hit the WTC -- let's pass that on to the judge!
Unfortunately I've noticed that a number of the new groups that have formed -- journalists for 9/11 and others -- all link to physics911.net -- why?? Why on earth would anyone link to a site with no-planes-at-the-WTC essays by Reynolds and other disruptors?
They should have only linked to the Journal, not to "no planes" websites. Submitted by Victronix on Wed, 09/30/2009 - 9:04pm http://www.911blogger.com/node/21515
Is there anyway to move this to the NYC CAN thread? Great find Victronix!
More from Colonel George Nelson:
In the interest of time, I'm going to relate just one more piece of key evidence. The aircraft that was reported in the government's official story to have crashed into the south tower was United Airlines, Flight 175 carrying 65 passengers, including the crew and five highjackers. One of the television news cameras captured the Boeing 767, just as it was banking into a left turn, seconds before striking the building. Underneath the fuselage, installed across the starboard aircraft wing root, is a visible, large piece of equipment that most viewers have called a “Podâ€. Many have speculated what purpose the “Pod†might have served on a passenger carrying, scheduled airliner, but such speculation is pointless at the present time. The fact is, that such extraneous equipment would have never have been installed on a Part 121, scheduled airliner in the first place. Every piece of equipment proposed for use on an aircraft after its production must be issued a Supplemental Type Certificate by the FAA prior to installation. No record of an STC was found that would authorize such external equipment to be used on a Part 121, Boeing 767 airliner. This leads to a more disturbing speculation, that the airplane seen hitting the south tower was not UAL flight 175, but a plane that had been substituted for flight 175.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson1...
Here is Dennis P. Mahon's Website:
Colonel George Nelson interviewed by Joyce Riley and Dave Von Kleist:
The link doesn't seem to work, just goes to google.
The stuff above is sad and so so predictable.
Go there: http://911verses.com/911/underground/
The interview is dated: 2005-04-27
I also saw a post on Facebook that said Les Jamieson and Joe Friendly were at the courthouse on Tuesday.
This is posted on the front door of Vox Pop. Remember who they inherited this mess from.
Open the image in a new tab or window to have readable text.
Check out the post he's advocating for newbies --
FOLKS: I have three articles you should see. After nine years, the 9/11 Truth Movement is beginning to be taken seriously by the AntiWar Left.
I have published a primer on this issue that introduces the evidence to the curious.
And at this point, it's time to take the case to the courts. We are working on doing just that, starting with the case of Don Meserlian. We are using a law called "Misprision of Treason."
Read On!
The Boston Peace/Truth Movement Convergence http://sanderhicks.com/newenglandreport.html
A new Primer on 9/11 Truth: http://guerrillaunderground.ning.com/profiles/blog...
Misprision of Treason: Can the Meserlian Trial Bring the 9/11 Traitors to Justice?:
http://sanderhicks.com/ Misprision. html
Sander Hicks http://www.sanderhicks.com
Here's an excerpt from the "primer" --
-As noted above, despite the impact, the windows on the third floor directly above the impact zone were undamaged. This is highly unlikely if a plane with a height of 44 feet hit the building. (See http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/build...). Second, despite the fireball, items directly next to the impact zone were undamaged by fire, including a wooden desk with an open book. (See http://www.physics911.ca/Omholt:_9/11_and_The_Impo.... ; Scroll down about 3/4 of the way and look for a daytime shot of the collapsed section of the building. On the second floor, in the third room back, is a wooden stand on which is sitting an open book. Neither of these items -- nor anything in the rooms adjacent to the impact zone -- was even singed.)
Sad. His book admits that the no plane stuff is BS.
I guess it's more profitable to humor the crazies than to be truthful.
from Sander Hicks's book press release - it's hard to imagine a rational and sincere reason to admit the no plane stuff is BS and now promote its adherents:
9/11 was allowed to happen by Bush’s architects of death.
Every five years or so comes the kind of book that is likely to lead to the resignation and impeachment of senior White House officials. In March, Vox Pop will publish such a book: The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up by Sander Hicks, the gutsy investigative journalist and "punk of publishing" who started Soft Skull Press and Vox Pop.
With original research and interviews, The Big Wedding provides a new level of proof that Bush's advisors had detailed foreknowledge of 9/11. The book dispenses with the hypothetical and the realm of maybe. It attacks the kooky conspiracy theories, like "no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon," which distract from certain suppressed historical truths: the CIA has had a controlling, client relationship with the powerful Pakistani intelligence group, ISI. The ISI has proven links to 9/11; they were key funders, trainers, and supporters. Therefore, it's impossible that the CIA and White House didn't have detailed foreknowledge of 9/11 Hicks provides details from the Iran/Contra and Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandals that aid our understanding of the global political struggle and the secret history that never makes its way onto corporate media outlets. BCCI, like 9/11, involved black market global capital, the Bush family, the Pakistanis, and the CIA. An overview of the literature on BCCI, as well as all other 9/11 books, is a big feature of Big Wedding. Hicks also relates personal details: his intimacy with Bush biographer Jim Hatfield, and the secrets Jim took to his grave in July 2001. For the first time, Hicks tells the story of his personal recruitment by the CIA, and why he rebuffed the offer. This story is evident of one thing: Hicks must be onto something.
The Hicks post promoting the "no plane" hoax also links to these Holocaust Deniers: American Free Press (aka we think HItler deserved the Nobel Peace Prize), Rense, What Really Happened and even the Adelaide Institute (the main Holocaust Denial organization in Australia).
It even pushes the claim that the WTC was "powered down" before 9/11, which is one of the most evidence free claims in the whole magical thinking land of 9/11 truthiness.
Are there any 9/11 "truth" writers who've started off bad and got better? Most seem to start reasonable and get progressively irrational. Of course there are many are started bad and stayed bad.
Who even remembers The Complete 9/11 Timeline at this point?
Monday, December 06, 2004 'Reality Is a Construction...': Sander Hicks and the 9/11 Truth Movement www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/micke...
When you have a sensitive topic here, when so much political power is involved, there's going to be a series of false reports, disinformation put forth to obscure the real story, red herrings to throw off the dogs. It happened in the JFK assassination, and it's happening now. My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it’s one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak. You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan’s book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it’s hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day. I've also seen media voices dismiss the entire topic of 9/11 questioning by sweeping it all into some kind of anti-Semitic whacko camp. -- Sander Hicks
So, good idea? Bad idea?
Sanderhicks.com vs. Sanderhicks.org
I'm posting it here before I announce it more broadly as it's not quite done and I could use suggestions. No content yet. The site is in Wordpress, and so it's easy to post new stories. Sander's site is a total mess, with each page having different spacing of elements, but I got the header looking nearly identical.
I could add other admins if anyone would like to be able to post stories, but there would be just a bit of instruction when it comes to adding images. Easier to send me things to post.
I don't intend to spend any great deal of time with this, but with a few stories and some links, this may do some good.
Great idea.
It's no secret around here that i am no fan of Sander Hicks. I will never forgive him for what he did at a NYC 9/11 Truth event at Riverside Church - in which Scott Ritter spoke - and 800 people were in attendance. he single-handly GUTTED the entire event.
having said that...
i think its a bad idea
i think the approach you guys have taken in the past - compiling scholarly well-documented position-pieces on various activists is the way to go. this newer approach comes across as more 'personal' - and on the surface appears to be a hit-piece - a personal attack against a 9/11 Truth activist - akin to stalking techniques we have seen in the past - that could generate a reaction that is the opposite of what you hope to inspire.
perhaps if you crafted the headline to sound a little more objective - and a little less .... angry(?) ... you could use this idea of dueling URLs more effectively. i actually like the idea of using dueling URLs. but - i think it is essential that you position yourself as the mature and sober voice of reason. voice your concerns - and let the facts speak for themselves. but - words like "idiocy" appear mean-spirited (whether he deserves it or not) and may obscure and color people's perceptions of YOU.
John,
First of all, I'm the sole author.
Second, it is more personal, and I'm perfectly fine with that because Sander Hicks is just another disinfo goon like Barrett or Fetzer or Wood, people he obviously supports.
Third, I completely agree with your comment about appearing to be concerned with facts and not insults so I got rid of the subtitle. I left the title of the page "Sander Hicks Promotes Disinformation" because that's true. I also included an invisible subtitle that may show up in a search, "Webster Tarpley, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Kevin Barrett, Les Jamieson, TheWebFairy, Killtown, No Plane, Space Beams."
Thanks for the input.
all in all - i think you're doing a great job
Hi all, as you know I'm not very active these days (beyond some fiery web posts) but I do follow what's here fairly regularly and remain a believer in the group of you as the most reasonable people left in the largely overrun "truth" scene.
I think the proposed Sander critique site is very flawed. Please consider the following:
1) Everyone who's wise and sober enough to see the problems with Sander's activities is going to see the problems when they encounter them, regardless of what you do.
2) Everyone else is tossed about and easily influenced. This is what made me give up on the struggle for NY 911 back in those days. Once it was clear Frank was going to keep the church reserved for Les's "big tent" demotivational serminars, what was the point of having a team sport of escalating accusations on the Internet?
2a) Apropos the present case. So you put up a site with that title, and you make a case why it's true. Category 1 people do their due diligence and agree with you. Category 2 majority read a counter-site called "TruthMove Promotes Disinfo" and split the difference. They end up at "golly why can't we all get along" Big-Tent longing for harmony. Blame for a conflict is apportioned to those who are perceived as raising accusations, rather than those who actually did something worthy of accusation. We live in a highly confused, low-grade debating environment. Truth is disappeared. Reality itself has devolved into a kind of post-reality infinite echo chamber with little distinction between fact and fiction. I think this is the reason you saw all of the most suspicious characters who have come to fuck up this movement engage in early, preemptive blanket accusations calling everyone else paid agents, "leftist gatekeepers," anti-Muslim racists (if they don't declare flat-out no hijackers at all times), "Zionist" dupes, shills, mind-control victims, whatever. That's practically the calling card of the real disruptors: don't talk about issues or reaching a large number of people, talk about presumed internal enemies. It inoculates against the later, justified accusations against THEM. To the uncertain observer without the tools or the inclination to use critical analysis, it all sounds the same. It also makes a lot of smart people see a mess they don't want to step in, so that to protect themselves they start adding their statements to the chorus of "I'm not a conspiracy theorist!"
3) Accusations are one thing, documentation is another. Some people who fit into category 1 may not have the information available. So a site documenting the problems in Sander's approach might be worthy. Especially if it puts him on the spot. (Blanket accusations don't do that - they free him to fire back in kind, true or not.)
Therefore I'd recommend changing the title to something that challenges, rather than accuses. As an example:
We challenge Sander Hicks...
to reconcile his statements on "no planes" theories. Why in his own writings does he dismiss these as misinformed or part of a disinformation, even as he promotes and allies with others who have made these the forefront of their activities and also engaged in outrageous, disruptive behaviors? (This requires a review of why "no planes" at Pentagon especially is a faulty argument and really faulty approach.)
Something along these lines with shorter, snappier points, anyway. Appearing as an attack site even with 100 percent factual accuracy may only serve to adds to the general attack atmosphere that proceeds entropically to a state of "Trust No One, Do Nothing." At least for the Category 2 majority.
Put him on the spot where he has to answer reasonable questions about what he does. Keep the tone neutral. Emphasize all the ways in which he has done good work (much of his writing) and demand that he lives up to that and stops wrecking it with his questionable activities. Give a simple, neutral history of his roles and activities until now.
You may say Sander doesn't deserve this much consideration, and should simply be attacked. Whether or not you're right about him isn't the point. How to speak to the readers persuasively, truthfully and with integrity should be. How to create an atmosphere where activities that damage the cause are exposed without it turning into a mudfest where the only winners are those who want to see divide and conquer.
I'll confess I don't think of him as one of "them." He's a non-stop self-promoter convinced that he should be so because he carries a Messiah complex a mile wide, and he has a lot of talent, a combination that can be just as damaging but may be brought around to doing less damage anyway.
Whatever you do, you have earned my respect, and I hope vice-versa. If you think a different strategy here is called for, go ahead.
"Lose the title" would have sufficed. I did.
On the other hand, thanks for the thoughtful response.
I'll get to the content one of these days before long. I'm just going to re-post stuff and provide some links on the About page.
By the way, you evidently think he can be trusted at all, while I do not.
I can't trust anyone who worked with Fetzer after 2005 or Les Jamieson after 2006. That indicates an impairment either of ethics or of judgement, or both. I'm just saying where I believe he's coming from and what I think is the best way to address the problems he causes.
I'll just reiterate -- great idea!
Next project -- 9/11 Truth Advisory Board Member, Fred Burks:
Perhaps in the new decade some of the "leaders" of the "truth" movement may yet realize that the plane hit the Pentagon and that they were played for fools by the perpetrators.
"No planes" was not a "theory" -- it was a hoax. Claims that are blatantly false are not theories, they are merely wrong. One can sincerely believe something that is wrong but that doesn't make it truth even if one uses the word truth over and over.
It was very clever for the media to focus on no planes and demolition while the best evidence went unmentioned. I've lost count of the number of professional journalists I've talked with who never heard about the warnings and the plane into building exercise, but they have complained about the people who claim 9/11 never happened or that the plane crashes didn't exist or the myriad science fiction stories about the WTC collapses. Mission accomplished.
John Judge was right: 9/11 Truth is an inside job!
Nicholas said:
I can't trust anyone who worked with Fetzer after 2005 or Les Jamieson after 2006. That indicates an impairment either of ethics or of judgement, or both. I'm just saying where I believe he's coming from and what I think is the best way to address the problems he causes.
I'll even agree with you that much of Sander's self-centered personality and the fact that he was running a business can explain many of his affiliations with Fetzer, Tarpley and the like. While running a business, Sander and his tendency to want to network as much as possible led to his indiscriminate relationships. I am sure at a certain point, he did not want any trouble and he just wanted to keep things positive for the sake of his business.
I have read The BIg Wedding and I think that it is excellent and that his section about the Pentagon and the 9/11 Truth movement is well-written, insightful and an excellent piece to show to someone who is new to all of this.
That being said, I think that where he is coming from is something that has changed and that it changed fairly recently (within the last couple of years). If you had heard his speech introducing CIT at the We Demand Transparency Conference in September or had read some of the emails leading up to it and compared it to his intelligent writing, particularly on the Pentagon, in The Big Wedding, then I think that it is nearly impossible to dismiss that there was a conscious change on where Sander has been coming from. And that this change led to him being more compromised than he was before. Keep in mind that I do not know what this change is exactly, but I have a idea of what could have caused it. I think that the main reasons behind it are in this article that I posted previously:
http://onlytheblogknowsbrooklyn.typepad.com/only_t...
Sander, who founded Vox Pop as a politically progressive cafe (with the hopes of franchising the idea), was reluctant to close the Lower East Side branch. Debi told Sander that she would take over the Brooklyn branch for 60 days if he would attempt a last ditch effort to make the Vox Pop at the Bowery Poetry Club profitable. It had already become a serious financial drain on the Brooklyn cafe.
Soon after it became apparent that the Bowery Vox Pop would have to close and that the Brooklyn cafe would need new leadership to get it through its economic travails. Sander resigned as did the original board of directors. A new board was formed and Debi took over as CEO. Soon after, Debi, who was trying to untangle Vox Pop's financial mess discovered that there was an unpaid fine to the Health Department for $30,000. Not only that: due to this the Health Department had the right to close Vox Pop down and they did just that.
After that, Debi and I sat downstairs on a banquette and continued our talk. I was curious about what happened to Sander Hicks, the charismatic visionary behind the cafe. She provided me with some history. In 2004, Sander and his then wife Holley Anderson started the cafe with seed money from the sale of Holley's family farm. In fact, the children's loft section (which looks a little like a barn) is actually from that farm. The original conception was a cafe/bookstore/performance space/community center and self-publishing mecca (called Publish Yourself) that would morph into a national franchise of political cafes.
Vox Pop was the first cafe of its kind on Corteylou Avenue and it quickly became a community destination with its decidedly progressive politics, its free trade coffee and its vegan menu. Since opening, other restaurants like The Farm on Adderly, Sycamore and other neighborhood spots have opened and Corteylou Avenue now has a growing mix of ethnic businesses, basic service shops run by longtime shopkeepers and new shops catering to the gentrifying neighborhood.
It can't have been easy for Sander to walk away from his unique creation. Ultimately it may have been the best thing for him and for the cafe. And in Debi he may have found a perfect successor to keep his vision alive. All in all, it seems a peaceful transition of power with a board made up of long-time Vox Poppers including Sander's ex-wife, Holley.
As for Sander, Debi told me that he has a couple of book deals in the works and is set to go on tour as part of his Inaugurate Yourself campaign. Seems to me he personally has a strong brand as a charismatic visionary. There's even an indie film based on his life. For a guy who thinks big, that might be a better route than operating a local cafe.
In the last weeks, this plan has raised close to $65,000 to help Vox Pop pay off its $30,000 debt to the Health Department, 4 months of back rent to the landlord and whatever else will get them out of the red.
I have read The BIg Wedding and I think that it is excellent and that his section about the Pentagon and the 9/11 Truth movement is well-written, insightful and an excellent piece to show to someone who is new to all of this.
That being said, I think that where he is coming from is something that has changed and that it changed fairly recently (within the last couple of years). If you had heard his speech introducing CIT at the We Demand Transparency Conference in September or had read some of the emails leading up to it and compared it to his intelligent writing
... I would have been appalled. First I'm hearing of it. CIT, no less. Very suspicious.
You must log in to post.