--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66
Capital Games by David Corn
The September 11 X-Files
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. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
quipped, "The congresswoman must be running for the Hall of Fame of
the Grassy Knoll Society." 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. 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.
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 colu mn dismissing various 9/11
conspiracy theories. 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?) 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.
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?) 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. An American who was jailed in Canada,
Vreeland claims to be a US naval intelligence officer who tried to
warn the authorities before the attacks. Ruppert cites 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. But, I discovered, the two men had a loyal--
and vocal--following. They were being booked on Pacifica stations.
Ruppert was selling a video and giving speeches around the world. (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. Whatever the truth of his encounter
with this woman, the relationship apparently extracted a toll on
Ruppert. 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 and a feeling that his life was endangered by individuals
connected to organized crime. 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."
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. 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." Ruppert claims that twenty members of
Congress subscribe to his newsletter.
Ruppert is not a reporter. He mostly assembles facts--or purported
facts--from various news sources and then makes connections. 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?" 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. 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." 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. There is
no date mentioned, no obvious reference to a set of perpetrators. 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. 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? 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. Kevin Wilson, a Canadian federal prosecutor
handling the extradition case, and Galati, Vreeland's lawyer, say no
seal has been ordered.
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."
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." Nor
did he he believe Vreeland was a spy or that he had smuggled
documents out of Russia. Macdonald, though, did state that the US
records submitted in court 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, 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. 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. 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. It is
easier to believe that a well-versed con man got lucky with the
Bastien death/murder, was able to arrange a stunt with the Pentagon
switchboard and either wrote a sketchy note before September 11 that
could be interpreted afterward as relevant 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. 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?
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. 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." 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.
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. 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. 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.
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 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. 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 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.
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. 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.
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.
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--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.
© 2002 The Nation Company
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/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 ---
