Any OCTer's wish to discuss either or both

Welcome to Terror Land

or the Peter Lance Time Line for Triple Cross?

I just bought a couple of Robert Anton Wilson books, a Bernays book (Propaganda, the only one that doesn't seem to cost $100), and I'm working on Jared Diamond's Collapse right now. They're all going to keep me busy for a while.

trilogy and the Illuminatus Trilogy by Wilson many years ago.

I enjoyed them, but Wilson is a little hokey sometimes.
Which Wilson books are you reading?

You can read The Lance time line at his web site for free and "Welcome to TerrorLand" at the free online lending library at americanbuddha.com

I remembered Quantum Psychology, that looked good - and then there was another that was in the Buy This One Too slot. Prometheus Rising - I think it's more recent. From the description at Wikipedia, he appears to have an eccentric view of the world.

I have wanted to check out Hopsicker's work, but at his site, you only get a couple of chapters, IIRC. I will make my way to americanbuddha.com eventually.

I'm trying to use the google but......

http://www.peterlance.com/Peter%20Lance/TRIPLE%20CROSS%20Timeline%20Part%20One.html

http://www.american-buddha.com/911.welcometoterrorlandhopsicker.htm Scroll down to the table of contents

Seems very interesting and Lance highly recommends a book I recently read.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/1438234

The Looming Tower, By Lawrence Wright.

Anyone that truly want to understand how 9/11 happened should read it. OTOH, if your looking for wild speculation with little or no documentation do not buy the book.

it would be foolish of me to add anything else. I have to get rid of all the "loaners" first.

:hi:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-lance/triple-cross-nat-geo-cha_b_28270.html


The casualty of all of this was the truth - and under the guise of a documentary which Nat Geo Channel claimed was "based in part" on my book, they perpetrated a factual distortion unknown in the recent history of broadcast journalism.

Why does any of it matter and why is this not simply a case of a disgruntled writer, unhappy at a television adaptation of his work? Because going in, the Nat Geo Channel bought a documentary from a five-time Emmy winning reporter that, once and for all, would expose the negligence of the Dept. of Justice on the road to 9/11. See the treatment that they green lit. It's at the end of the August 27th, 2006 press release.

This matters because key Feds who covered-up probative al Qaeda intelligence in 1996 remain in senior positions at Justice. Fitzgerald is U.S. Attorney for Chicago and Special Prosecutor in the CIA leak case. Valerie Caproni, who supported Fitzgerald's 1996 burial of evidence of an active al Qaeda cell in New York, is now the FBI's general counsel.

Most importantly, as I discovered after five years of research, the FBI has failed to reform post 9/11. After more than $600 million spent on an updated computer system to track bin Laden, they have scrapped the "virtual case file" system and FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress in 2005 that it will be 2009 before they have the same ability to connect the dots that most Americans have using Google and other search engines.

Just months ago it was reported that many agents in the FBI's flagship "bin Laden" New York office didn't even have access to e-mail - while al Qaeda remains a tightly organized threat.

Further, as I report in TRIPLE CROSS (the book) Dietrich Snell, a key SDNY prosecutor who served with Fitzgerald, covered up crucial evidence of FBI negligence before the 9/11 Commission and flushed key links between al Qaeda and the New York cell of blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman that were turned-up in the year 2000 by the Army's Operation Able Danger.

Monday night's documentary gave lip service to the tragic Ali Mohamed story but failed to provide a single word of critical analysis to help viewers understand what a disservice Feds like Cloonan and Fitzgerald did to this country in causing citizens to rely on the Justice Department to protect them, while they were continually outgunned by bin Laden's #1 spy.

:yourock:

I'd be interested in reading all of the resident CTists' critiques and reviews of the two books John Q Citizen has cited in creating this thread.

I mean actual critiques and reviews by resident CTists, not mindless cutting and pasting from a website like "seemslikeadream" did above, and not mindless cheerleading like "wildbilln864" did above. I'm talking about actual real world, real life, "you have to actually read the book in order to critique it and review it" - not investigoogling on the internets. That means reviews and critiques from those of the resident CTists who have actually read the books that JQC cited.

If there are any.

However, I'm not interested in writing a critique or a review.

I would like to discuss the implications of their journalistic investigations with OCTists who have also read them.

That would mean if you care to participate in this thread in the spirit of my OP, G. Hawes, that you would read them, if you haven't already. If you don't want to, no prob, but please don't attempt to divert this thread to an inside-jobbers-do-critiques-or-book-reviews thread. Thanks.

and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Your post made me wonder about whether CTists here have critiqued or reviewed the sources that you cited and I am genuinely interested in reading any critiques or reviews they've done, that's all. It appears that none of the CTists here have done any such critiques or reviews, but it was a legitimate inquiry made out of interest and I thought it was even on-topic. Oh well.

discuss them.

Your call.

that CTists here haven't stepped up to the plate, are you? Me, neither.

I would have expected them to be all over this thread offering their views if they'd read the sources you cited, and I think you would have expected the same, (you know that they would have been posting cheerleading posts all over the place if they'd any idea what you're talking about) so I can only surmise that they have not read the sources, and frankly I never thought they would, did you?

Now I'm thinking that if even the diehard CTists among you can't be bothered to read them and post even a short, simple critique or review, it would probably be a massive waste of time for me to do so. I mean, if even diehard CTists here can't be bothered to read the sources you posted in support of the CTist pov, it seems rather redundant for a non-CTist like me to bother, doesn't it?

That said, I'll probably read them anyway because I like to have a complete picture of varying views and because I like to see in black and white the extent to which woowoo permeates the twoof movement, but given that not even twoofers here seem to be interested in your links, I have to be honest and say that they're not going to be at the top of my reading list so I might not get around to them for a while.

In fact Hopsicker, and his work, has been discussed often, and almost exclusively by inside jobbers. There was also a thread about Lance's book, Triple Threat, and his Time line, again almost exclusively discussed by inside jobbers.

In fact, the dearth of discussion by OCTers on these authors and their work is the reason I started this thread.

you must realize alots of folks don't come around here any more and if they do, they usually do not post. Maybe with the new ignore feature things might change but I doubt it. The bullshit around here is not worth it.

I really don't have the time to discuss Peter Lance's book right now but of course I was accused of crap by someone who knows nothing about me.

I do find it interesting that he trashes Patrick Fitzgerald and Larry Johnson and that he promotes ABLE DANGER.

But even in my short time here, it is obvious that CTists tend to do a whole lot of cheerleading on threads even if the OP purports to call for discussion by non-CTists, so the fact that they aren't cheerleading on this particular thread leads me to believe that most of them either (a) haven't read the sources you've cited, or (b) they have read it and don't buy it.

Perhaps the dearth of discussion is due to the fact that even your fellow CTists don't even buy into it, and non-CTists therefore have little incentive to bother. Just a thought.

Great what did you think of what you read?

at least

"read the OP please" and I responded saying that I had read it, as I'm sure you know, followed by this:



Please try to follow the conversation. It isn't that difficult around here. I even tried to use simple language and small words to make it easier.



edited to remove unnecessary (even if deserved) snark.

on my part. Sorry to jump to conclusions.

Who was it who said "Ignorance is bliss" anyway?

I am so offended

Another excellent book is Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow by Kristen Breitweiser. She talks about the Jersey Girls weird meeting with Kissinger, a bizarre encounter at Starbucks with Philip Zelikow, interesting conversations with the FBI and she examines the failure to track al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi.

Triple Cross is based on the idea that Mohamed worked for al Qaeda and fooled US intelligence for years. Did Mohamed truly fool the DoJ, CIA, FBI, NSA and DIA? Not a chance.

When Tenet was holding urgent meetings with Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft in 7/01 why didn't he pick up a phone and call the FAA to let them know that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were in the country?

Did the 9/11 Commission even consider that 9/11 might have involved complicity on the part of some US government officials? I don't believe so. Seems to be the difference between a proper criminal investigation (follow the trail wherever it leads) and a political CYA exercise.

sifting of available news reports does raise many questions and also provides some answers.

I agree with you that his conclusions are surprisingly weak, yet his brilliance is in the new information he presents.

Some in the 9/11 Truth movement view their work as a "limited hangout" by "gatekeepers." Yet, Lance and Hopsicker actually went into the field and interviewed people involved in the events surrounding 9/11. The information they attained would likely not be available if not for their efforts. IMO, it's fair to question their motives but to dismiss them out of hand because they aren't talking about patsies and demolition is a bit much. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

I wonder if Lance chose the incompetence tact because it helped him get access (to people like Cloonan) and ensured his book would be read by a wider audience. I am biased but can't help but think that anyone who reads 1000 Years for Revenge or Triple Cross is going to find the explanation of official incompetence hard to believe.

Hopsicker seems to me to be a classic conspiracy theorist; throw a bunch of dots out there and hope that somebody sees a connection. I have not read the book yet, but I will start today. It will be interesting to see how much of his claims about Atta's drinking, cocaine, and strippers boil down to Amanda Keller, who http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100466/1007/BUSINESS"> now admits that she lied about being Atta's girlfriend. If you've ever watched the interview with Keller, you'll note that she carefully avoids using mentioning Atta's last name; it's always "Mohammed did this and Mohammed did that".

last name is natural enough. When you speak of your girlfriend, wife, children, best buddy from high school, etc do you use their first and last name? I don't.

Well, with one exception. I do have a friend with a one sylable first and last name that I use both when referencing him. His first name is Mike, and there are a lot of Mikes out their.

Yes, Amanda has recanted her story a couple of times,(I think for her own personal protection) but Hopsicker has plenty of other corraborating witnesses, such as Amanda's landlord, her next door neighbors, and others. He also first learned of Wolfgang Bohringer from Amanda, and what Amanda said way back before anybody else had heard of Bohringer in the context of Atta.

So, keep an open mind, and happy reading!

He has these corroborating witnesses. And the notion that Amanda has recanted her story for personal protection is a little far-fetched, don't you think? I mean, the story that she was Atta's girlfriend was out there for years and somehow she survived.

BTW, I found out that Hopsicker was a featured guest at a lecture hosted by Holocaust Revisionist Supreme, David Irving. I suspect I'd get tombstoned if I linked the program guide because it's at Stormfront, but if you Google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=Real+History+USA+2002&btnG=Search"> Real History USA 2002, it's the first result. It's not dispositive of his credibility, but it's certainly indicative that everything he claims needs to be scrutinized with a skeptical eye.

original story twice.

She was also in a child custody hearings/process at the time of her first recantation. I would consider that as as personal protection, wouldn't you? Do you have kids?

Also, what Hopsicker found in Florida is consistent with a pattern of Government protection of the accused hijackers and their associates through out the country. Triple Cross finds the same government aid and protection to other accused hijackers and their associates, as does the book Unsafe at Any Altitude.

So I'll be reading it. I mean, it was right there in the bookstore, close to the Looming Tower, which I was also going to get...

...but then I found the Typecasting book that I thought I had missed. So I'll get the Looming Tower later.

I'm on the fourth chapter now.

If they do, fine. If they don't, the author is a liar.

that the 19 accused hijackers were helped by intel/LEO agencies of our government, but they don't argue that our government purposely and knowingly helped them to allegedly carry out the attacks.

:loveya:

As you will see, oh my lovely Ms. Hope, the post below could not have been written in four minutes. There are many things YOU can do in four minutes and I invite you to do them all!

:hug: :pals: :hi:

From the looks of it, it definitely could have been written in four minutes.

However, this is John Q's thread, and, I am sure he will converse with you about the quality of that post.

In the meantime, have a very good one, oh sensitive one.

I swear to you on the heads of your precious kitty cats. Thank you for your concern as to our "lack" of response to John Q. However, I assure both you and he that I have sunk $25 into Triple Cross and I am reading it and I am happy to discuss it.

Thirty minutes, at the very least.

On edit: As a matter of fact, I'm sure a moderator would be able to check the logs and determine exactly when I hit the reply button to that post. I freely grant any moderator who cares to do so to publish this exact time. Thank you in advance.

I got to Chapter 4 and then checked out Typecasting, an incredible history of stereotyping by Ewan and Ewan. That is consuming most time I have to read - it's well written, intelligent...love it. Go get it. And that's my ad for the day.

Cross is a good writer as well, but he's got his polemic ways. Not too badly, he does have his facts and he's got corroborating evidence. But there are times when I feel that information (from Agent Cloonan, say) is being presented too credulously. I also get this feeling that I'm only looking at the things Lance wants me to look at, and only in the way he wants me to look at them.

For example, the account of Ali going to Afghanistan to fight Russians. I can see this sliding, even with the two reports Anderson filed (on leaving and on return). Before Ali left, he had done some bragging about Afghanistan, but he had dotted the i's and crossed the t's to visit Paris. He had the leave time. Then he got back and bragged again about killing Russians. Yeah, it wasn't protocol, but at the time, America's policy was getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Ali didn't get caught, he didn't create an international incident, and he came back with trophies. The bravado with which Ali carried this out was mostly likely admired by most around him. And if a similar situation existed for a red-blooded American boy, I'll bet just as blind an eye would have been turned to this type of infraction.

Yes, we know he was delivering intelligence, but Lance says he delivered that intelligence (Afghan maps, etc.) to Ahmad Shah Massoud, the man killed a couple of days before 9/11, the man mostly likely to have been the focus of American efforts to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. And once he got himself to Bragg, his worth as an training asset would have been unavoidable, and that's something he would have known from his first time there.

Lance spends two short chapters (twenty pages or so) talking about Ali Mohamed's five year career in the Army. There has to be more sides to the story that Lance isn't presenting. Still, he does have points - there was a level of official tolerance of Ali in the Army that he was able to exploit. A more detailed examination of this period might give more definition to that level.

get the book.