please note that Janice took down all references to the NY event from 911Truth.org per my request in an email exchange we had very early Sunday morning (3:00 am).
but she did say she would be doing an extensive report on Dr Pepper's presentation because he assured her that he would be going into 'specifics' regarding the infiltration of the 911 Truth movement.
i have not seen any reports on Pepper's presentation.
Does anyone know if his presentation was reviewed or streamed anywhere?
Yes, Janice does notice and listen when someone expresses concerns with the site. She's removed other stuff in the past at important times.
I'd sent Pepper my particular concerns about the event and someone else passed it along to him with similar concerns. So I'd be interested to see that too.
i wonder what the hold up is. i haven't heard a peep about Pepper's presentation on any of the usual message boards. its very disappointing.
Yeah, this is encouraging. I was going to email Janice also, but was feeling a bit disheartened about this whole mess.
No word about Pepper. Strange. Maybe post a comment on blogger or DU trying to find someone who was there...
Good.
I hope 911truth.org sends out an email message to its list retracting its promotion of the NYC nonsense event (they sent out an email promoting it on Sept. 8).
I look forward to the day when most of the "truth" movement stops promoting books, films, websites and events pushing the "no plane" nonsense. There are many other false claims, but if there's not unity on this point there's not any point in having a "truth" movement.
It's nice to see truthmove recognize this is BS.
www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon 23 October 2002 by John Judge
.... There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings. "These conspiracy theorists will believe anything" say our detractors. Let's discover and present the hard facts and force the coincidence theorists to come up with plausible explanations instead of spewing out speculations we cannot back up and leaving ourselves on the defensive.
Les' description of Webster Tarpley's talk.
"Webster Tarpley had a new slide show with his views on current political reality mixed with a good dose of humor."
I don't find what he did funny at all.
I just watched Pepper's speech on Google Video and it was similar to his others in Chicago and last year. He did mention the idea of an independent commission in NYC and then said to contact Les Jamieson about how we can get involved. He's generally an excellent speaker, but his lack of direct involvement in the 9/11 movement led to him saying that I think.
What do you all think about Sander Hicks? He writes excellent articles and letters (http://nymegaphone.com/node/24), his 9/11 book is great, but he has published two books where Fetzer either contributed or wrote the introduction and always has been a big proponent of Webster Tarpley whenever I have spoken to him. I think that these relationships might have to do with him running a business rather than something more dubious. Sander Hicks I think has the brains and is in touch enough to realize what is going on, but he says little on the issue of disinformation and willingly participates in this event.
Here is Fetzer talking about Hicks on Black Op Radio:
http://www.blackopradio.com/black313a.ram
Here is a really interesting clip of Hicks talking to Jerome Hauer:
http://www.voxpopnet.net/podcasts/hauer.mp3
I was talking to several people yesterday who were talking with Ralph Schoenman the day before and he was telling them how Tarpley, from his LaRouche connections, is most likely affiliated with the Defense Intelligence Agency. I agree with what Schoenman is saying about LaRouche and Tarpley, but I find this weird (not suspicious necessarily) because Schoenman has always been a huge proponent of Mark Lane, author of Rush to Judgement and Plausible Denial, in his JFK writings and audio. In Mark Lane's book on the 1968 Democratic convention, Chicago Eyewitness, he says in the bio that he was in Army Intelligence during the 1950s and Mae Brussell always brought up evidence how Mark Lane represents the DIA by who he focuses on and leaves out (also his associations by representing James Earl Ray, John Hinkley Jr, the Liberty Lobby and with the events of Jonestown).
Here are two radio shows of Schoenman's where he frames the JFK debate between Mark Lane (DIA) vs Max Holland of the Nation (CIA):
http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim060321.mp3 http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim060328.mp3
I think seeing this phony debate amongst well documented agents might serve as a model to what we are dealing with in some situations.
"Let me warn you that this movement is, will be, and will continue to be, heavily infiltrated by government, that there will be disinformation spread throughout your ranks, and there will be people that come and give you disinformation and advocate disinformation for the purpose of discrediting what you're really about. For the purpose of not allowing you and your message to get into the mainstream. Be wary of that because they're in your midst as I speak. They've been in every organization that I've ever known that eventually becomes a threat to this system."
"They must divide groups like this, they must split you apart from other organizations."
But that was about it. Too bad he is advocating a commission connected to that group and Les being involved. Why does he not get it? Amazing.
Ask John Albanese how many times I've defended Les Jamieson. To hear that he didn't even speak up INFURIATED me.
about Sander Hicks:
in 2004 NY 911 Truth was able to secure a historic church - Riverside Church - in Harlem NYC - to hold a 911 truth event. This church was where Dr. Martin Luther King made his famous "beyond Vietnam" speech.
even more encouraging - we managed to get ex-weapons inspector Scott Ritter to agree to appear and speak. this was huge!!
in the lead-up to this event the NY group worked harder than i have EVER seen this group work before to promote an event. we paid out of pocket expenses to professionally print literature and invitations that we handed out everywhere we could. the literature we prepared was balanced and mature. the effort we made phenomenal. we attended ANSWER and United For Peace and Justice events to invite everyone we could. we spent countless hours at ground zero and Union Square park handing out invitations. we prepared press kits that we distributed to all of the media. (in those days there was a completely airtight media blackout on 911 Truth) many of our banners read: End the Media Blackout on 911.
just a few weeks before the event we held a meeting at Columbia University to discuss our plans. Sander Hicks showed up. i had never heard of him. he was a complete stranger - yet certain members of the NY group suddenly voted to make him our keynote speaker!! i have no idea why. but - at the time i was a quiet member of the group who went along with whatever the majority wanted. but i was perplexed as t o why a complete stranger would be given this privilage.
the agreement was that he would prepare a speech and slideshow.
on the day of the event we drew 800 people. it appeared to be a huge success - despite the protests outside the church being waged by Nico Haupt and Angie D'Urso who were handing out literature attacking out guests.
and then Sander Hicks spoke.
it was something out of the Twillight Zone. he had no slideshow. he discussed NONE of the research we had all agreed upon - instead choosing to reference obscure articles from HUSTLER MAGAZINE. (in a church - LOL!!) his delivery vascilated from whispering (so no one could hear him) to screaming. Over half the audience walked out - many with their hands over their ears. i shit you not. no exaggeration. Many of the activists involved in organizing this event were reduced to tears. Finally - mercifully - Jamie Hecht (From the Wilderness) walked on stage and literally pulled him off.
it was a tremendous defeat.
to this day i do not know how and why Sander Hicks suddenly appeared - a virtual stranger - and given the reigns over this event. but he single handedly scuttled the entire opportunity. his rambling histrionics and non-sensicle speech defied explanation.
but - was i surprised years later to discover that Dr Fetzer was appearing at Hick's coffee house in Brooklyn? no. no suprise there.
Thanks for the detailed description--we need background like this more often. Sometimes it seems like this movement has no sense of history (I guess it makes sense for the people who joined last year, but not for Les Jamieson and other leaders who've been around for a while). I had heard this Sander Hicks anecdote before, but now it sounds a little clearer--especially after seeing him introduce Jim Fetzer and Alfred Webre yesterday.
But then I just got an email with this going around -
subject SF911Truth: Spitzer/Silverstein connection
mailed-by googlegroups.com
Here is some reporting by Sander Hicks in his megaphone. Quite interesting...
Spitzer's Real Scandal
"Eliot Spitzer is like the good-looking bouncer in a bar, who is secretly dealing drugs," explained forensic microbiologist Mike Copass. We were in a San Diego bar this July, down near the water in Ocean Beach. Copass had acted as a facilitator of San Diego's 9/11 Citizen's Grand Jury, an extra-legal group which mounted a mock trial in April.
I mentioned Sander Hicks here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/11254
Mr. Hicks has a story out that Spitzer helped Silverstein. I don't have an opinion on this story except that we should verify it.
"Chris" is attacking me for bringing up some of the details mentioned here. If someone wants to comment on 911blogger, by all means.
I voiced my concerns because of the comments here and also, the release has Mr. Spitzer's email address. Now if this is a hoax, (on 9/11 of all times), and people are harassing him over this story, does that help or hurt our credibility to get answers to 9/11 questions.
"Chris" attacks a lot of things and seems to live online.
As Sander writes, Spitzer did file an amicus brief in support of Silverstein's case arguing that the WTC destruction counted not as one but two events in a legal sense, meaning that Silverstein was entitled to double the maximum payoff on the insurance policy he negotiated for the WTC with a coalition of insurance companies. The WTC was covered for about $3.5 billion, Silverstein claimed he was entitled to $7 billion.
I was aware of this years ago, the amicus brief can be downloaded from Judge Hellerstein's site, but Sander is apparently the first to publish an article on it. Silverstein was exploiting the wording of his policy with Traveller's, under which the WTC destruction did indeed qualify as two events, and arguing that this also obligated the rest of the insurers involved to the double payoff, although none of the other contracts contained this loophole.
Truthfully, I would have expected that Spitzer or any New York politician would support Silverstein's argument, logically and morally dubious though it may be. The thinking here would be that the city and state need Silverstein to get the money and rebuild, and damn the insurance companies.
The case was settled this year, probably thanks to Spitzer's election as governor, which raised the pressure on the insurers. They agreed to a double payoff on a reduced liability of $2.2 billion, i.e. they paid $4.4 total instead of the original $3.5. If I remember correctly Silverstein got about 3/4 of that, about triple what the WTC had actually cost him since purchase, and he has been freed from any obligation on the "Freedom Tower" which is going to be built by the state and is likely to lose a lot of money. The rest is going to the state. Silverstein is going to build the smaller buildings nearby, which are likely to be highly lucrative. So the business has turned out good for him.
Nick Levis? That can't be THE Nick Levis. Nick Levis retired years ago, and moved to the tropics.
Thanks JohnA. That's right, Sander Hicks gave Fetzer a forum AFTER he began very visibly promoting disinformation. Is there anything you can add about his talk at Riverside Church? Does a video exist? This is really surprising because it seems very different than the Sander Hicks I have seen give lectures. I definitely will ask him about Fetzer though next time I go to VoxPop.
"These are the venom-mongers, the merchants of pus who like to operate from behind the scenes. These are the wreckers and saboteurs, and of course the question is posed: Is this COINTELPRO?" --Webster Tarpley, about Cosmos and other commentators at truthaction.org
I couldn't find a thread devoted to Sander Hicks, so I'm gonna put this here- Hicks claimed, "According to a San Jose newspaper, Jerome Hauer told the White House to go on Cipro on the evening of 9/11/01. They did. (On the phone with me, he denied telling the White House that, for what it's worth.)"
Hicks responded that he thought it was the San Jose Mercury News, but was unable to confirm it. According to Nico Haupt(!), it was the Contra Costa Times, but the link Haupt provided contains no such claim. http://www.911blogger.com/node/17040#comment-19456...
We have a lot of Hicks info towards the end of the second and beginning of the third page thread:
www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1551
And this thread: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1432?replies=...
There is a bit more about him here: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1590?replies=...
Also throughout the NYCCAN thread.
i've never seen the source of these 'tips from high officials'
Evening, September 11, 2001: White House Staff, Including Cheney’s, Start Taking Anthrax Antibiotic Cipro On the evening after the 9/11 attacks, some White House personnel, including Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff, are given the anti-anthrax drug Cipro, and told to take it regularly. [Associated Press, 10/24/2001] An unnamed “high government official†also advises some reporters to take Cipro shortly after 9/11 (see Shortly After September 11, 2001). Judicial Watch will later sue the Bush administration to release documents showing who knew what and when, and why presidential staff were protected while senators, congresspeople, and others were not. [Associated Press, 6/9/2002] Entity Tags: Richard (“Dickâ€) Cheney, Judicial Watch Category Tags: Cipro / Bayer
Shortly After September 11, 2001: High Government Official Advises Some Reporters to Take Anthrax Antibiotic Cipro
Richard Cohen. [Source: Washington Post]Washington Post journalist Richard Cohen will later write: “The [2001 anthrax] attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.†[Slate, 3/18/2008] He will explain on a different occasion, “On a tip, I asked my doctor early on to prescribe Cipro for me, only to find out that, insider though I thought I was, nearly everyone had been asking him for the same thing.†[Washington Post, 7/22/2004] A number of White House officials begin taking Cipro the evening of September 11, 2001 (see Evening, September 11, 2001). Also, on September 26, well before any reports of real anthrax attacks, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd will write, “Americans are now confronted with the specter of terrorists in crop dusters and hazardous-waste trucks spreading really terrifying, deadly toxins like plague, smallpox, blister agents, nerve gas and botulism. Women I know in New York and Washington… share information on which pharmacies still have Cipro, Zithromax and Doxycycline, all antibiotics that can be used for anthrax, the way they once traded tips on designer shoe bargains.†[New York Times, 9/26/2001]
Entity Tags: Richard Cohen, Maureen Dowd
I'll make myself useful, briefly, since I remember this clearly.
Yes, after the anthrax mailings became public news articles citing high officials reported that Cheney staff preemptively started taking Cipro on Sept. 11th. (Though I must say this strikes me as a bizarre precaution. How long can one take the drug, how long does such a measure provide protection, and won't it be less effective later if there actually is a need?) Judicial Watch put in a FOIA, though I've never seen a follow-up. Anyway, Nico dug up that Hauer (who's suspicious for other reasons) had moved in to the administration as some kind of bioterror adviser on Sept. 10th, asked therefore if Hauer was the "high adviser" prescribing Cipro for Cheney's staff, and in his usual fashion soon started stating it as established fact that he was. This suckered a lot of people, including Ruppert who learned his lesson from this that you can't trust Nico's stuff.
So in short, far as I know, the source of the Cipro recommendation has never been established.
Judicial Watch put out a statement that they were basically stonewalled on the FOIA request - and only issued 4 generic email statements from the White House - with no clarity on the issue.
but - you can add this to your list of questions: why was Dick Cheney's staff ONLY on guard for Anthrax? how many other chemical and biological agents/weapons, pathogens, viruses, bacteria and toxins have been weaponized by third-world nations?
what a coincidence that they protected themselves against Anthrax on the eve of an anthrax attack hitting the Capital Hill mailrooms.
the specificity and timing of these Cipro precautions was always very peculiar.
Sure, this one's been in the Queue since back in the day.
The standard debunker answer: Cipro's a broadband antibiotic, good against many different pathogens. Not an answer, however, insofar as the decision to force some staff to take it was still meant as a counter-terror. Why would they consider the threat specifically of a biological attack (using pathogens that Cipro can counteract, such as anthrax) to require immediate protective measures - as opposed to any of thousands of other possible attacks? I mean, Cheney's staff presumably didn't put on bulletproof vests or gas masks, or add a layer of lead to the White House walls, or wear a second pair of magic underwear. The real point is, Cipro is an antibiotic, not a vaccine. Its protective effect prior to infection would be ridiculously short-term and may make the next use of antibiotics less effective. In the absence of specific information or logical rationale suggesting an immediate reason it might be a good idea for someone to take it, the measure is bizarre - like raising your arm to block against a head-punch every 10 seconds as you walk down the street, because, well, someone could always punch you.
You must log in to post.