--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
I will respond to Corn's column in its entirety.
 The September 11 X-Files
+++++++++++++
On the title: Corn refers to both the X-Files and Alias. I don't
watch any of these crappy shows, but they are all approved and
encouraged by their respective agencies to keep the masses happy
about the spooks, just like ER (which I have never seen) depicts the
most altruistic part of medicine that actually offers care to
everyone. Jennifer Garner and Keifer Sutherland both got Golden
Globes for fronting this crap, and there have never been as many
friendly spook shows as there are now.
But the tactic is to create these outrageous scenarios for the masses
and then, as has been the case in several columns, compare legitimate
research to Mulder chasing UFOs.
+++++++++++++==
> 05/30/2002 @ 1:56pm
> On March 25, during a Pacifica radio interview, Representative
Cynthia
> McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, said, "We know there were numerous
warnings
> of the events to come on September 11.... What did this
Administration
> know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11?
Who else
> knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York
who were
> needlessly murdered?" McKinney was not merely asking if there had
been an
> intelligence failure. She was suggesting--though not asserting--
that the US
> government had foreknowledge of the specific attacks and either
did not do
> enough to prevent them or, much worse, permitted them to occur
for some
> foul reason. Senator Zell Miller, a conservative Democrat from
her state,
> called her comments "loony." House minority leader Dick Gephardt
noted that
 he disagreed with her.


+++++++++=
What Corn did not say about Gephardt is that the full quote is "I
disagree with her but I respect her right to her opinion" and then
later HE HIMSELF asked "What did Bush know and when did he know it?"
Corn's tactic is to suggest that Gephardt is with him and not in any
way accomodating or echoing McKinney.
Here in Joyzee there is a primary coming up on Tuesday, I am going to
write in McKinney for Congress. I encourage others to do the same in
both in the primary and general election, unless you have a close
district. Most of the state primaries are coming up – here is a
calendar of the whole country:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/onpolitics/elections/2002/primarycalendar.htm
++++++++++++++==


 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer quipped, "The
> congresswoman must be running for the Hall of Fame of the Grassy
Knoll
 Society."

 +++++++++++++=


 That is really very funny. Funny in the press room because anyone=
who would stand up and say that there is piles of evidence that shots
were fired from the Grassy Knoll has been weeded out of White House
Press Core. The spokesman from Carlyle made a similar joke,
mentioning the grassy knoll.
Cheney also made a remark that anyone of political importance would
not suggest that there is foreknowledge. This is important, because
he is prescribing the mythology of the `movers and shakers' in
contrast to the outsiders who trouble themselves with an unencumbered
analysis.
That may account for Corn's utter hatred for Ruppert and his
unrelenting cheap shots. Once upon a time I spoke up for the guy
(Corn) just because he covers a lot of issues well and is very bright
and I share a lot of his opinions.
But Corn has spent his whole adult life establishing himself as a
solid `member of the team,' who plays by the (obstructive, and, in
Ruppert's words, murderous) rules and derives his prestige from the
ability to promote himself little by little using the Nation and his
contacts in intelligence. He notes at the very end Ruppert's
followers, and he hates the fact that someone can come along and set
up a web site that in a couple of years forces the issue and takes
him to task for covering up things about Shackley that Corn thought
the sheep would never know.
But the problem with this headshrinking is that it assumes that Corn
hasn't been selected for this smear attack. I don't know one way or
another, but when you assume you make an ass out of u and me, as the
saying goes.
+++++++++++++++

 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called her a "nut." Two months
> later, after it was revealed that George W. Bush had received an
> intelligence briefing a month before September 11 in which he
informed told
> Osama bin Laden was interested in both hijacking airplanes and
striking
 directly at the United States, McKinney claimed vindication.

 I don't know if `claimed vindication' is accurate.

 But that new
> piece of information did not support the explosive notion she had
unfurled
> earlier--that the Bush Administration and/or other unnamed
parties had been
 in a position to warn New Yorkers and had elected not to do so.
+++++++++++++++++
No, Time Mag has not decided to print all the evidence of
complicity. Because of this, McKinney should not claim vindication
in Corn's view.
This is analogous to a congressman saying early on that Reagan traded
arms and money for the hostages in Iran and even (through Bush) had
had their release postponed to hurt Carter. Then when some of
Iran/Contra comes out, well that's not in there so the congressman
must be wrong. I needn't belabor this point because everyone sees
Corn's fallacy, but Iran/ Contra is an example I use to anticipate
what the media will do with 9-11 foreknowledge. But that was before
such nice inventions such as this internet thing.
++++++++++++
> With her radio interview, McKinney became something of a
spokesperson for
> people who question the official story of September 11. As the
> Constitution's editorial page blasted her, its website ran an
unscientific
> poll and found that 46 percent said, "I think officials knew it
was
> coming." Out there--beyond newspaper conference rooms and
Congressional
> offices--alternative scenarios and conspiracy theories have been
zapping
> across the Internet for months. George W. Bush did it. The Mossad
did it.
> The CIA did it. Or they purposely did not thwart the assault--
either to
> have an excuse for war, to increase the military budget or to
replace the
> Taliban with a government sympathetic to the West and the oil
industry. The
> theories claim that secret agendas either caused the attacks or
drove the
> post-9/11 response, and these dark accounts have found an
audience of
> passionate devotees.
> I learned this after I wrote a column dismissing various 9/11
conspiracy
 theories.

 ++++++++++++++++

 Wow, that is honest. How could he have written about Ruppert and
not known about theories of complicity? Just try to act like you
tell the truth for once, Corn.
 +++++++++++=
 I expressed doubt that the Bush Administration would kill or
> allow the murder of thousands of American citizens to achieve a
political
> or economic aim. (How could Karl Rove spin that, if a leak ever
occurred?)
++++++++++++++++++++
Karl Rove knows that the demographics of the country are making GOP
victories less and less likely and that fears of foreign attackers
are necessary to secure the public's support for GOP administrations.
He knows that the best way to fix the gender gap is to make women
want the bully who can protect their kids. He has given up on Latinos
and is trying to feed the hawkish turn among the Jewish population to
win Jewish support (which is no longer working). How could The
Bushes spin BCCI? They do what they know how to do.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
> Having covered the national security community for years, I
didn't believe
> any government agency could execute a plot requiring the
coordination of
> the FBI, the CIA, the INS, the FAA, the NTSB, the Pentagon and
others.
> And--no small matter--there was no direct evidence that anything
of such a
> diabolical nature had transpired.
++++++++++++++++++++
The planes staying on the ground. The obstruction of investigations
dripping out is all just a coincidence or symptomatic of a `culture,'
the inside trades are a coincidence, the warnings unheeded a
coincidence. Bush watched the first plane… anyway, this is CIA drugs
so I don't need to waste my time on this one.
+++++++++++++++++++++=
> Hundreds of angry e-mails poured in. Some accused me of being a
> sophisticated CIA disinformation agent. Others claimed I was
hopelessly
 naive. (Could I be both?)
+++++++++
This is the two headed straw man. In Casino De Niro says "you must be
either crooked or stupid, either way you don't walk the floor for me."
+++++++++=
 Much of it concerned two men, Michael Ruppert and
> Delmart "Mike" Vreeland. Ruppert, a former Los Angeles cop, runs
a website
 that has cornered a large piece of the alternative-9/11 market.
++++++++++++++
Two tactics at play here – he is lumping Ruppert's character together
with Vreeland who he feels can be attacked for criminality, and he is
also associating Vreeland's tendency for tall tales with Ruppert,
suggesting that Ruppert also makes up things.
++++++++++++
 An American
> who was jailed in Canada, Vreeland claims to be a US naval
intelligence
 officer
++++++++++++=
 NOTE: and proved as much in court
+++++++
 who tried to warn the authorities before the attacks. Ruppert cite=
s
> Vreeland to back up his allegation that the CIA
had "foreknowledge" of the
> 9/11 attacks and that there is a strong case for "criminal
complicity on
> the part of the U.S. government in their execution." My article
discounted
 their claims.
+++++++++++++++++++++=
 Delusions of grandeur. Is there any third party that has read the=
related materials that actually said that Corn "discounted their
claims?"
 ++++++++++

 But, I discovered, the two men had a loyal--and
 vocal--following.
++++++++++=
 See, this is what he hates.

 +++++++++++++++

 They were being booked on Pacifica stations. Ruppert was
 selling a video and giving speeches around the world.
+++++++++++++++++++=
 Mention of the video is included to make Ruppert seem like a
financial opportunist, even though he provides most of his content
online free rather in book form.
 +++++++++++++++++
 (In February, he
> filled a theater in Sacramento.) I decided to take a second--and
> deeper--look at the pair and key pieces of the 9/11 conspiracy
movement.
> The Ex-Cop Who Connects the Dot
> By his own account, Ruppert has long been a purveyor of amazing
tales. In
> 1981 he told the Los Angeles Herald Examiner a bizarre story
about himself:
> While a cop in the 1970s, he fell in love with a mysterious woman
who, he
> came to believe, was working with the mob and US intelligence.
Only after
> she left him, Ruppert said, did he figure out that his girlfriend
had been
> a CIA officer coordinating a deal in which organized crime thugs
were
> transporting weapons to Kurdish counterrevolutionaries in Iran in
exchange
> for heroin. In an interview with the newspaper, the woman denied
Ruppert's
 account and questioned his mental stability.
++++++++++++++++=
 Gee, I thought she would be quoted as saying "I am a traitor and I=
left Mike because I only date traitors. Everything he says about me
is true and I will leak classified information using my real name to
prove it."
 +++++++++++++++++=

 Whatever the truth of his
> encounter with this woman, the relationship apparently extracted
a toll on
 Ruppert.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++=
 To infer that Ruppert quit the force solely out of heartbreak is
impossible to do honestly, assuming that he is basing this on reading
the Congressional Statement from start to finish.
 ++++++++++++++

 In 1978 he resigned from the force, claiming that the department
> had not protected him when his life was threatened. According to
records
> posted on Ruppert's site, his commanding officer called his
service "for
> the most part, outstanding." But the CO also said Ruppert was
hampered by
 an "over-concern with organized crime activity

 +++++++++++++++++=
 How much concern for organized crime is too much?
 +++++++++++
 and a feeling that his life
 was endangered by individuals connected to organized crime.
++++++++++++++
 Corn does not mention attempts on Ruppert's life. That is a
typical fascist tactic, to say that someone is psychotic when he is
perceiving a threat which is actual.
 +++++++++++++++++

 This problem
> resulted in Officer Ruppert voluntarily committing himself to
psychiatric
> care last year.... any attempts to rejoin the Department by
Officer Ruppert
> should be approved only after a thorough psychiatric examination."
+++++++++
For the Nation to put on their Website an attempt to stigmatize
someone for seeking psychiatric counseling under the circumstances
Ruppert was in is a repugnant betrayal of the traditions of the
magazine – on the part of the editors, I mean. It goes against
everything that the Nation is supposed to represent.
+++++++++++=
> In 1996 Ruppert showed up at a community meeting in Los Angeles
concerning
> charges that the CIA had been in league with crack cocaine
dealers in the
 United States.

 ++++++++=
 Of course Corn would have used "claims" instead of "charges" were =
it not for that fact that he would be openly mocked for saying that
these "charges" were merely a "claim."
 +++++++++++++++++

 There Ruppert claimed the agency had tried to recruit him in
> the 1970s to "protect CIA drug operations" in South Central Los
Angeles--an
> allegation that was missing from the guns-and-drugs story
published in
> 1981. In 1998 he launched his From the Wilderness alternative
newsletter,
> which examines what he considers to be the hidden currents of
international
> economics and national security untouched by other media. On
March 31 of
> last year, for instance, he published a report on an economic
conference in
> Moscow where the opening speaker was a fellow who works for Lyndon
> LaRouche, the conspiracy-theorist/political cult leader. "I share
a near
> universal respect of the LaRouche organization's detailed and
precise
 research," Ruppert wrote. "I have not, however, always agreed with=
[its]
 conclusions."

 +++++++++++=
 Amazing, Corn did not take the second part of the quote out. Did h=
e
miss this or think he wanted to deviate slightly from pure propoganda?
 +++++++++++++=

 Ruppert claims that twenty members of Congress subscribe to
> his newsletter.
++++++++++++++=
Trying to out the Congressmen or something… Corn knows Ruppert is not
going to list them so there's another chance for a cheap shot. Of
course everything that supports Corn is an observation and everything
Ruppert says is a claim.
+++++++++++++=
> Ruppert is not a reporter. He mostly assembles facts--or purported
 facts--from various news sources and then makes connections.

 +++++++++++++++
 There is no way someone who is taking a "deeper--look at the pair =
and key pieces of the 9/11 conspiracy movement" could conclude
honestly that Ruppert does not make stories out of his own sources.
That is just a baldface lie. Of course if Ruppert used only his
sources and not published stories, everything would be wild "claims"
in Corn's view. Heads I win, tails you lose.
 +++++++++++++++

 The proof is
> not in any one piece--say, a White House memo detailing an
> arms-for-hostages trade. The proof is in the line drawn between
the dots.
> His masterwork is a timeline of fifty-one events (at last count)
that, he
> believes, demonstrate that the CIA knew of the attacks in advance
and that
> the US government probably had a hand in them. Ruppert titled his
timeline
> "Oh Lucy!--You Gotta Lotta 'Splaining To Do."
> In the timeline he notes that transnational oil companies
invested billions
> of dollars to gain access to the oil reserves of Central America
and that
> they expressed interest in a trans-Afghanistan pipeline between
1991 and
> 1998. He lists trips made to Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000 by
former
> President George Bush on behalf of the Carlyle Group investment
firm. On
> September 7, 2001, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed an order
restructuring
> the state's response to acts of terrorism. There's a German
online news
> agency report from September 14 claiming that an Iranian man had
called US
> law enforcement to warn of the attack earlier that summer. The
list cries
 out, "Don't you see?"

 +++++++++
 The tactic of providing excerpts of watered down evidence and
suggesting that it doesn't prove a case is defeated as soon as people
read the actual website.
 ++++++++++++

 Oil companies wanted a stable and pro-Western regime
> in Afghanistan. Warnings were not heeded. Daddy Bush had dealings
in Saudi
> Arabia. Brother Jeb was getting ready for a terrible event. It
can only
> mean one thing: The US government designed the attacks or let
them happen
> so it could go to war on behalf of oil interests.
 Space prevents a complete dissection of all Ruppert's dots.

 +++++++++++++
 A baldface lie. This is a web-only column. You have all the space =
you want.
 +++++++++++

 But in several
> instances, he misrepresents his source material. Item number 8
says that in
> February 2001, UPI reported that the National Security Agency
had "broken
> bin Laden's encrypted communications." That would suggest the US
government
> could have picked up word of the coming assault. But the actual
story noted
> not that the US government had gained the capacity to eavesdrop
on bin
> Laden at will but that it had "gone into foreign bank accounts
[of bin
> Laden's organization] and deleted or transferred funds, and
jammed or
 blocked the group's cell or satellite phones."

 ++++++++++
 As Preston says, Corn knows that if the CIA can block a phone they=
can tap or intercept it.
 ++++++++

 Item number 9, based on a
> Los Angeles Times story, says the Bush Administration gave $43
million in
> aid to the Taliban in May 2001, "purportedly" to assist farmers
starving
> since the destruction of their opium crop. Purportedly? Was the
> administration paying off the Taliban for something else? That is
what
 Ruppert is hinting.

 ++++++++
 Has the US ever given out foreign aid to a country only for the
stated purpose? I'll answer this: no, never. Name one time. Corn is
playing dumb again.
 +++++++++

 The newspaper, though, reported that all US funds "are
> channeled through the United Nations and international agencies,"
not
> handed to the Taliban. Unless Ruppert can show that was not the
case, this
 dot has no particular significance.

 +++++++++++++++++
 Corn suggests that the UN is set up to deny the US the right to
have aid delivered for the stated purpose of eradicating poppies, out
of some conviction of theirs. Corn is playing dumb again. Boutris-
Boutris Ghali thought that the UN was an autonomous entity, not
controlled by the US. Now Boutris-Boutris is autonomous and the UN
goes its merry way without his direction.
 ++++++++++++

 What if Washington funded international
> programs assisting Afghan farmers? With his timeline, Ruppert
implies far
> more than he proves. It is a document for those already
predisposed to
> believe that world events are determined by secret, mind-boggling
> conspiracies of the powerful, by people too influential and wily
to be
> caught but who leave a trail that can be decoded by a few brave
outsiders
> who know where and how to look.
++++++++++++++++=
In other words, people who read investigative journalism. Corn is
stating loud and clear that obstruction and not discovery is his
calling.
++++++++++=
> The "Spy" Who Tried To Warn Us?
> Ruppert can claim one truly original find: Delmart "Mike"
Vreeland. He is
 the flesh on the bones of Ruppert's the-dots-show-all timeline.

 ++++++++
 Tactic: aggrandize the importance of Vreeland, saying that the
whole theory is dependent on him. Then smear Vreeland.
 ++++++++

 On December
> 6, 2000, Vreeland, then 34, was arrested in Canada and charged
with fraud,
> forgery, threatening death or bodily harm, and obstructing a
peace officer.
> At the time, he was wanted on multiple warrants in the United
States--for
> forgery, counterfeiting, larceny, unlawful flight to avoid
prosecution,
> narcotics, reckless endangerment, arson, and grand theft. Months
earlier,
> the Detroit News, citing law enforcement authorities, had
reported that
> Vreeland was an experienced identity thief. While Vreeland was in
jail in
> Toronto, law enforcement officials in Michigan began extradition
> proceedings.
> On October 7, 2001, Vreeland, who was fighting extradition,
submitted an
> exhibit in a Canadian court that he says shows he knew 9/11 was
coming.
> And, Ruppert argues, this is proof that US intelligence was aware
of the
 coming attacks. The document is a page of handwritten notes. There=
is a
> list that includes the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower and
the White
> House. Below that a sentence reads, "Let one happen--stop the
rest."
> Elsewhere is a hard-to -decipher collection of phrases and names.
Vreeland
> claims he wrote this in mid-August 2001, while in prison, and had
it placed
> in a locked storage box by prison guards. He says the note was
opened on
> September 14 in front of prison officials. Immediately, his
lawyers were
> summoned to the prison, according to one of them, Rocco Galati,
and the
> jail officials dispatched the note to Ottawa.
> Vreeland's believers, including Ruppert, refer to this note as
a "warning
> letter." It is no such thing and, though tantalizing, holds no
specific
 information related to the 9/11 assaults.

 ++++++++++++
 Baldface lie. The WTC is not specific enough? Is Corn looking for =
a
floor number?
 ++++++++

 There is no date mentioned,

 +++++++++
 Gee, no one told Vreeland the exact date and time of the attack.
Where are my tax dollars going?
 ++++++++++++=

 no
 obvious reference to a set of perpetrators.

 +++++++++
 Unlike the FBI, who TODAY bragged on Meet the Press about getting =
the list immediately, even if several of those on the list have
turned up alive.
 +++++++++++

 In a telephone interview with
> me, Vreeland said this document was not written as an alert. He
claimed
> that throughout the summer of 2001, he was composing a thirty-
seven-page
> memo to Adm. Vernon Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, and that
this page
> contains the notes he kept during this process. What of the memo
to Clark?
> Vreeland won't share it, maintaining that he wrote in such a
manner that
 only its intended recipient would truly understand what it said.

 +++++++++
 Again, does Corn expect Vreeland to fax it right over to the
Nation? Playing dumb again.
 ++++++++++++

 Who can
> confirm the note was indeed what he had placed in storage prior to
 September 11? Is it possible some sort of switch was pulled?

 ++++++
 What reasonable person would suggest that he switched the two
documents?
 ++++++++++++

 Vreeland
> maintains that during court proceedings, five officials of the
Canadian
> jail affirmed that he had passed this document to the guards
prior to
> September 11. When I asked for their names, Vreeland said the
judge had
 sealed those records.

 ++++++++++
 Corn expects there to be prison guards that would corroborate the =
story of an inmate that charges the White House with mass murder and
want their names in the press. Yes, tell us their names, the boys
will take good care of him.
 ++++++++

 Kevin Wilson, a Canadian federal prosecutor handling
> the extradition case, and Galati, Vreeland's lawyer, say no seal
has been
> ordered.
+++++++++++
So either a judge or a lawyer lied. There is a first time for
everything.
+++++
> The note is one small piece of Vreeland's very big Alias-like
story. He
> claims he was a US naval intelligence officer sent to Russia in
September
> 2000 on a sensitive mission: to obtain design documents related
to a
> Russian weapon system that could defeat a US missile defense
system. He
> swiped copies of the documents and altered the originals so the
Russian
> system wouldn't work. As one court decision states, "According to
> [Vreeland], he was sent to Russia to authenticate these documents
because
> he had originally conceived of the theory behind this [anti-Star
Wars]
> technology, when working for the US Navy in 1986." While in
Moscow, he also
> snagged other top-secret documents that, he claims, foretold the
September
> 11 attacks. And now the US government, the Russian secret police,
organized
> crime and corrupt law enforcement officials are after him. As one
Canadian
> judge noted, "No summary of the complex allegations of multiple
concurrent
> conspiracies...can do justice to [Vreeland's] own description."
+++++++
The crime of not living amid simple circumstances.
++++++++
> Ruppert and Vreeland assert that Canadian court records back up
Vreeland.
> But court decisions in his case have questioned his credibility.
In one,
> Judge Archie Campbell observed, "There is not even a threshold
showing of
> any air of reality to the vast conspiracy alleged by the
applicant." Judge
> John Macdonald wrote, "I find that the Applicant is an
imaginative and
> manipulative person who has little regard for the truth.... the
testimony
> that he developed the theory for anti-Star Wars technology in
1986, based
> on high school courses, personal interest and perhaps a law
clerk's course
 and a 'Bachelor of Political Science' degree is simply incredible.=
"
++++++++++++
 This claim is not relevant to the documents that Vreeland was
carrying.
 ++++++++++++++++

 Nor did
> he he believe Vreeland was a spy or that he had smuggled
documents out of
 Russia.

 ++++++
 And was proven wrong by the phone call in the courtroom.
 ++++++

 Macdonald, though, did state that the US records submitted in cour=
t
> regarding Vreeland's criminal record were "terse, incomplete and
> confusing," and he noted that the sloppiness of the filing might
suggest
> the Michigan criminal charges were "trumped up." But he was not
convinced
> of that, explaining "I see no reasonable basis in the evidence for
> inferring that the Michigan charges are 'trumped up.'"
> It's not surprising those records might be a mess. After I first
wrote
> about Vreeland, I received an e-mail from Terry Weems, who
identified
> himself as Vreeland's half-brother. He claimed Vreeland was a
longtime con
> man who had preyed on his own family. Weems sent copies of police
reports
> his wife had filed in Alabama accusing Vreeland of falsely using
her name
> to buy office supplies and cell phones in August 2000. Weems
provided me a
> list of law enforcement officers who were pursuing Vreeland in
several
> states. I began calling these people and examining state and
county
> records. There was much to check.
> According to Michigan Department of Corrections records, Vreeland
was in
> and out of prison several times from 1988 to 1999, having been
convicted of
> assorted crimes, including breaking and entering, receiving stolen
> property, forgery and writing bad checks. In 1997 he was arrested
in
> Virginia for conspiring to bribe a police officer and
intimidating a
> witness, court records say. He failed to show up in court there.
In Florida
> he was arrested in 1998 on two felony counts of grand theft. In
one
> instance he had purchased a yacht with a check written on a
nonexistent
> account. He was sentenced to three years of probation. The Florida
> Department of Corrections currently lists him as an absconder. In
1998 he
> was pursued by the Sheffield, Alabama, police force for stealing
about
> $20,000 in music equipment. Charges were eventually dismissed
after some of
> the property was recovered and Vreeland agreed to pay
restitution. In the
> course of his investigation, Sheffield Detective Greg Ray pulled
Vreeland's
> criminal file; it was twenty pages long. "He had to really try to
be a
> criminal to get such a history," Ray says. A 1999 report filed by
a
> Michigan probation agent said of Vreeland, "The defendant has 9
known
> felony convictions and 5 more felony charges are now pending in
various
> Courts. However, the full extent of his criminal record may never
be known
> because he has more than a dozen identified Aliases and arrests
or police
> contacts in 5 different states."
> Michigan state police records (sent to me by Weems, Vreeland's
> half-brother) show that in 1997, while Vreeland was in jail after
being
> arrested on a bad-check charge, he wrote a letter to the St.
Clair Shores
> Police Department warning that his brother-in-law was going to
burn down
> his own restaurant. The letter was dated five days prior to a
fire that
> occurred at the restaurant, but it was postmarked three days
after the
> fire. "Do you see a pattern here?" Weems asks.
> Judge Campbell called Vreeland a "man who appears on this
evidentiary
> record to be nothing more than a petty fraudsman with a vivid
imagination."
 But Ruppert dismisses Vreeland's past,

 +++++++++++++++
 Again, that is a baldface lie. Ruppert states very clearly that
Vreeland `is not a saint' and has mentioned the criminal charges
repeatedly.
 ++++++++++

 noting he has "a very confusing
> criminal arrest record--some of it very contradictory and
apparently
> fabricated." When I interviewed Vreeland, he said, "I have never
legally
> been convicted of anything in the United States of America." And,
he added,
> he has never been in prison.
> There are two odd bounces in this case. Vreeland claims that in
Moscow he
> worked with a Canadian Embassy employee named Marc Bastien.
Unfortunately,
> this cannot be confirmed by Bastien. He was found dead in Moscow
on
> December, 12, 2000--while Vreeland was in jail in Toronto. At the
time of
> his death, Canadian authorities announced Bastien died of natural
causes,
> but Vreeland later claimed Bastien had been murdered. Then, this
past
> January, the Quebec coroner said Bastein died after drinking a
mixture of
> alcohol and clopazine, an antidepressant, and he noted that
Bastien may
> have been poisoned--or may have been offered the medication to
fight a
 hangover.

 +++++++++++
 Corn plays dumb again.
 ++++++++

 Had Vreeland really known something about this death, or had he
> made a good guess about a fellow whose death was covered in the
Canadian
> media? And during a courtroom proceeding, at Vreeland's
insistence, the
> judge allowed his counsel to place a call to the Pentagon. The
operator who
> answered confirmed that a Lieutenant D. Vreeland was listed in
the phone
 directory.

 ++++++++++++++++
 The directory of the Navy! Corn is changing the facts because he
has openly questioned whether Vreeland was in Naval Intelligence.
 ++++++++++++++++

 Afterward, Canadian prosecutors claimed that information from
> the US government indicated that a person purporting to be
Lieutenant D.
> Vreeland had earlier sent an e-mail to a telephone operator at the
> Pentagon, saying he would temporarily be occupying a Pentagon
office and
> requesting that this be reflected in the listings. Could a fellow
in a
> Toronto jail have scammed the Pentagon telephone system?
> In March the Canadian criminal charges against Vreeland were
dropped, and
> he was allowed to post bail. Explaining why charges were removed,
Paul
> McDermott, a provincial prosecutor, says his office considered
the pending
> extradition matter the priority. Vreeland's extradition hearing is
> scheduled for September.
> To believe Vreeland's scribbles mean anything, one must believe
his claim
> to be a veteran intelligence operative sent to Moscow on an
improbable
> top-secret, high-tech mission (change design documents to
neutralize an
> entire technology) during which he stumbled upon documents (which
he has
> not revealed) showing that 9/11 was going to happen. To believe
that, one
> must believe he is a victim of a massive disinformation campaign,
involving
> his family, law enforcement officers and defense lawyers across
the
> country, two state corrections departments, county clerk offices
in ten or
> so counties, the Canadian justice system and various parts of the
US
> government. And one must believe that hundreds, if not thousands,
of
 detailed court, county, prison and state records have been forged.=

 ++++++++++++
 Why would the Feds do a thing like that to Vreeland?
 ++++++++++=

 It is
> easier to believe that a well-versed con man got lucky with the
Bastien
 death/murder,
+++++++++++++++=
 The death of a friend – luck?
 ++++++++++++

 was able to arrange a stunt with the Pentagon switchboard

 ++++++++==
 That's easy to believe.
 ++++++++=

 and
> either wrote a sketchy note before September 11 that could be
interpreted
 afterward as relevant

 +++++++++++++=
 So there is no reason to believe that Vreeland had foreknowledge o=
f
an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but he just
wrote a letter about an attack in order to have it as evidence after
an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Corn is really
grasping at straws.
 +++++=

 or penned the note following the disaster and
> convinced prison guards he had written it previously. Michigan
detective
> John Meiers, who's been chasing Vreeland for two years,
says, "The bottom
> line: Delmart Vreeland is a con man. He's conned everyone he
comes into
> contact with. That's why he's wanted.... He keeps going back into
court for
> hearings because he doesn't want to come back here. He knows he's
going to
> prison, and he's fighting. In the interim, he's coming up with a
variety of
> stories."
> The Rest of It
> The Vreeland case--despite the attention it has drawn--is not the
 centerpiece of all 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 +++++++++++++=
 Is it or isn't it? Since your attempts to refute it failed, you
decided at the end that it isn't.
 +++++++++

 There is much more: A CIA
> officer supposedly met with bin Laden in July 2001 in Dubai.
Before
> September 11, parties unknown engaged in a frenzy of short-selling
> involving the stock of American Airlines, United Airlines and
dozens of
> other companies affected by the attacks. The Pentagon was not
actually hit
> by an airliner. Flight 93--the fourth plane--did not crash in
Pennsylvania;
> it was shot down. The Bush Administration, in talks with the
Taliban,
> warned that war was coming. And that's not a complete run-down.
> Some of the lingering questions or peculiar facts warrant more
attention
> than others. There was a boost in short-selling. But does that
suggest the
> US government ignored a clear warning? Or might the more obvious
> explanation be true--that people close to Osama bin Laden were
tipped off
 and took advantage of that inside information?

 +++++++++++++
 1. Ruppert demonstrated that that is not true. 2. If it was bin
Laden's coterie the technology and methods exist to expose it as such.
 +++++++++

 Ronald Blekicki, who
> publishes Microcap Analyst, an online investment publication,
says most of
> the short-selling occurred overseas--and escaped notice in the
United
 States.

 ++++++++
 That is impossible. First of all, how do you trade American
Airlines on the DAX?
 +++++++++
 If that type of trading had happened in the US markets, he
> explains, it would have stirred rumors about the companies
involved.
> "Everyone on the exchanges would have known about it," he
explains. "My
> best guess is that the people who profited were reasonably wealthy
 individuals in the inner circle of bin Laden and the Taliban."
++++++++++++++=
 Blame everything on bin Laden.
 +++++++++++++=
 What is
> curious, though, is that news of the investigations into the
short-selling
> has taken a quick-fade. Neither the Securities and Exchange
Commission nor
> the Chicago Board Options Exchange will say whether they are still
> investigating trading practices prior to September 11. And there
has been
> no word from Congress or the Bush Administration on this topic.
Suspicious
> minds, no doubt, can view the public absence of government
interest as
> evidence of something amiss. In this instance, the lack of a
credible
> official investigation creates much space for the disciples of
conspiracy
> theories.
+++++++++++++++
This is the lament of the dishonest man of privilege, that the
corruption and obstruction of justice of the heads of the town gives
the hoi palloi an air of authority and moral advantage. Oh, and
sycophants like me are made to look bad.
+++++++++
> No airliner at the Pentagon? You can find websites devoted to
that thesis.
> Another site, called www.flight93crash.com, offers a sober look
at the
> anomalies that have led people to wonder if that last plane, the
one in
> Pennsylvania, was blasted out of the sky.
> The alleged CIA-bin Laden meeting in Dubai has attracted intense
notice in
> alternative-9/11 circles. The story first appeared In Le Figaro,
a French
> newspaper, on October 31, 2001, in an article by freelancer
Alexandra
> Richard. Citing an unnamed "partner of the administration of the
American
> Hospital in Dubai," she maintained that bin Laden was treated at
the
> hospital for ten days. Her story also asserted that "the local CIA
> agent...was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go
to bin
> Laden's hospital room" and "bragged to a few friends about having
visited
 bin Laden," but she provided no source for these details.

 +++++++++++++
 ???? Someone didn't want to give their name and go on record? How =
could that have happened?
 ++++++++

 The hospital
> categorically denies bin Laden was there. Even if a meeting
occurred, that
 would not necessarily indicate the CIA was aware of bin Laden's
plot.

 ++++++++++=
 What, the agent in the elevator didn't say, "I just met bin Laden =
and he still want to cooperate with me to fly planes into the World
Trade Center on a working day."
 +++++++++

 Such
> news, though, would be a huge embarrassment and prompt many
awkward
> questions. But the meeting's existence--unattached to a single
identifiable
> source--can only be regarded as iffy.
> Two French authors, Jean-Charles Brisard, a former intelligence
employee,
> and Guillaume Dasquie, a journalist, have written a book, Bin
Laden; the
> Forbidden Truth, in which they maintain that the 9/11 attacks
were the
> "outcome" of "private and risky discussions" between the United
States and
> the Taliban "concerning geostrategic oil interests." As they see
it,
> Washington, driven by fealty to Big Oil, threatened the Taliban
with
> military action and replacement, as it was pursuing Osama bin
Laden and
> seeking a regime in Afghanistan that would cooperate with oil
firms. In
> response to Washington's heavy-handed tactics, the two suggest,
bin Laden
> and the Taliban decided to strike first. This double
> theory--it's-all-about-oil and Washington provoked the attack--has
> resonated on anti-Bush websites. To prove their case, the French
men attach
> sinister motives to a United Nations initiative to settle the
political and
> military strife in Afghanistan. Citing a UN report, they depict
this effort
> as "negotiations" between the Taliban and the United States, in
which the
> Americans aimed to replace the Taliban with the former King. Yet
a fair
> reading of the UN report shows that the endeavor--conducted by
the UN
> Special Mission to Afghanistan--was a multilateral attempt to
resolve the
> conflict in Afghanistan that involved discussions with the
various sides in
> that country. It was not geared toward reinstalling ex-King
Mohammad Zahir
> Shah.
+++++++++++++++=
No, they didn't install the ex-King, they installed a Unocol lobbyist
who is much more on top of his game. The ex-King is the key to US
influence in the `new' Afghanistan.
++++++++++
> Brisard and Dasquie's most dramatic charge is that former
Pakistani foreign
> minister Niaz Naik, who attended one of a series of international
> conferences held by the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan, says
that at the
> July 2001 meeting a "US official" threatened the Taliban, "Either
you
> accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a
carpet of
> bombs." (This portion of the book is similar to an earlier
article in the
> British Guardian, in which Naik additionally noted that the
Pakistani
> government relayed Naik's impression of this US threat to the
Taliban.) The
> Taliban, though, were not present at the session, which was held
in Berlin,
> and the three American representatives there were former US
officials. One
> of the reps, Tom Simons, a past US Ambassador to Pakistan who
spent
 thirty-five years in the foreign service, recalls no such threat

 +++++++++++++=
 Corn playing dumb. Would Simons ever want to confirm that quote?
 +++++++++++

 but
> acknowledges that the Americans did note that if Washington
determined bin
> Laden was behind the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, the Afghans
obviously could
 expect the Bush Administration to strike bin Laden.

 +++++++++
 Speak the party line: it is all about terrorism. That is what
diplomats do.
 ++++++++

 That would hardly have
> been a remark to cause bin Laden to arrange quickly a pre-emptive
assault.
> Simons--who says he was not interviewed by the French authors--
believes
> Naik misheard the Americans on this point. Whether Naik did or
not, the
> French authors, at best, suggest a line of inquiry rather than
come close
> to validating their contention. (Brisard and Dasquie also argue--
without
> offering an abundance of evidence--that the United States, by
design, did
 not vigorously pursue bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network

 ++++++++
 Not an abundance of evidence that the US did not vigorously pursue=
Al-Qaeda? Which mainstream press are you reading?
 +++++++++=

 because doing so
> clashed with other diplomatic priorities, most notably, cozying
up to the
> oil autocrats of Saudi Arabia.)
 Official accounts ought not to be absorbed without scrutiny.

 ++++++++=
 Especially yours.
 +++++++++

 Clandestine
> agendas and unacknowledged geostrategic factors--such as oil--may
well
> shape George W. Bush's war on terrorism. And there are questions
that have
> gone unaswered. For example, on September 12, 2001, a brief story
in
> Izvestia, the Moscow-based newspaper, citing unnamed sources,
reported that
> Moscow had warned Washington of the 9/11 attacks weeks earlier.
Was such a
> warning actually transmitted? If so, who issued the warning and
who
> received it? But questions are not equivalent to proof. As of
now, there is
> not confirmable evidence to argue that the conventional take on
September
> 11--bin Laden surprise-attacked America as part of a jihad, and a
> caught-off-guard United States struck back--is actually a cover
story.
> Without conspiracy theories, there is much to wonder about
September 11.
+++++++++
Sit down, get your crayons out, and Mr. Corn will explain to you
precisely what questions you should wonder about and instead of the
ones you shouldn't.
++++++++++++
> The CIA and the FBI had indications, if not specific clues, that
something
> was coming and did not piece them together. Government agencies
tasked to
> protect the United States failed. US air defenses performed
extraordinarily
> poorly--even though there had been signs for at least five years
that Al
> Qaeda was considering a 9/11-type scheme. Afterward, neither the
Bush
> Administration nor Congress rushed to investigate. In fact,
Senate majority
> leader Tom Daschle maintains that Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney both
> told him in January they opposed any Congressional investigation
of 9/11.
> (The White House denies this.) Congress finally greenlighted an
inquiry,
> but the investigation bogged down as the Congressional
investigators
> complained that the CIA and the Justice Department were impeding
their
> efforts.
> One problem with conspiracy theorizing is that it can distract
from the
 true and (sometimes mundane) misdeeds and mistakes of government. =

 +++++++++++
 No it is your writing style that is mundane.
 +++++++++

 But when
> the government is reluctant to probe its own errors, it opens the
door
> wider for those who would turn anomalies into theories or spin
curious
 fact--or speculation--into outlandish explanation.
++++++++++++=
 Another lament that they are making their shills look bad.
 ++++++++++=

 Not that all who do so
> need much encouragement. September 11 was so traumatic, so large,
that
 there will always be people who look to color it--or exploit it—

 ++++++++++++
 Exploit it?! Who is exploiting it?! BTW, go to Amazon and you can =
buy "A Just Response," probably the lamest book in the Nation's
history.
 ++++++==

 by adding
> more drama and intrigue, who seek to discern hidden meanings, who
desire to
> make more sense of the awful act. And there will be people who
want to
 believe them.
+++++++++++++
Several of those who don't want to believe in complicity dump Corn's
column on a listserv and say, `What he said." If they actually read
the article, they would see that Corn has NOT A SINGLE LEGITIMATE,
RELAVENT POINT. I have seen lawsuits where lawyers with no case
whatsoever but with considerable asshole liar skills get into every
piece of minutae and create little traps and twist things around so
that if you have no reading comprehension it sounds legitimate. The
question of who Corn's client is is not for this post.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Kwick Pick opens locked car doors,
front doors, drawers, briefcases,
padlocks, and more. On sale now!
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/xYTolB/TM";><B>Click
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
