Can someone post a CLEAR explanation of the Vreeland threat?

In the last day or two we've seen several threads discussion a man named Vreeland, and the possibility that he is aware of an impending attack. However, none of those threads seem to clearly explain exactly what is known about this, and what the concerns are.

Can any of the posters who are aware of this issue please post a clear explanation of this issue, including a narrative of who this Vreeland is, and what he is up to now?

(I have to go now, so I probably won't be responding in this thread. I'll check it later when I come back)

Thanks all

I asked this in another thread too but didn't get a response. Anyway, I had never heard of him until yesterday so I started reading up on him. From what I could understand from his interview he claims Iraq along with Russia was responsible for 9-11. As you can imagine this shocked me greatly. So for those that know and believe him, do you all think Iraq was responsible for 9-11?

Do you have some sort of evidence that Vreeland claims as such? I've never heard of it.

Like I said yesterday was the first I heard of it so I am no expert, and when I read this I felt the same way you do....Of course Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, which just makes this Vreeland thing even more suspect...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/092602_vreeland_gnn.html
Here is an excerpt from the link....Part Two
In April, Vreeland told me, "I don't believe Osama had a fucking thing to do with 9/11. I don't believe he set it up. I don't believe it was his people." In our interview this September, Vreeland's beliefs hadn't changed. He asked, "Why would an agent of the U.S. Government blow up the WTC? You've got Putin pissed off at Afghanistan, you've got the U.S. training Osama."

Then who did pull off the 9/11 attack? Vreeland believes that documents he viewed during his trip to Moscow implicated Iraq. He told me, "The document in Russian talks about blowing up things in the U.S." Earlier, in an April 17 interview with popular Yahoo radio host Jeff Rense, Vreeland said that in Moscow he had read "a letter from Iraq to Moscow detailing what would happen." Vreeland explains he was assigned to courier this letter to Canadian intelligence, but he sensed that something was about to go awry, so he copied the documents he was given. Rense asked him, "How specific was that letter?" Vreeland responded evenly, "Quite specific. It said September, World Trade Center. It specifically named that target, then it identified what was to happen after."

...whatever documents he allegedly saw could have been fakes.

be fake. I am just wondering about the people who do know him, or the people who do put stock into his story, do they agree or believe him about 9-11? Obviously with all conspiracy theories anything at any point in the story could be a lie, a fake, cover-up, innuendo so on and on and on. I am just curious what people who know more than I do think, which on this board it seems is almost everybody (that's why I love this place) Anywho, inquiring minds and all...

Minstrel Boy
Stickdog
Seventhson
Media_Lies_Daily

Ask any of these guys, they know tons of info, IIRC.

:)

:)

have talked to him many many hours.

No, I mean seriously PLEASE DO TELL. I'm all ears.

Has been a conspiracist favorite for years now, and of course, like the Roswell accounts, his tale has mutated over time to meet the changing conditions he claims to have prophesied. For reasons best known to themselves, there are some few who continue to treat him as a serious matter. There just is no accounting for tastes....

"You can't cheat an honest man."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

As did his Canadian jailers.

I'm no Vreeland expert. I've read the "9/11 precog" notes, know his basic story, and a little bit about his court appearances. I've heard his voice message tapes. But I'm no expert.

I doubt he's completely credible. Hell, he could be a disinformation agent, a fraud, mentally ill, or frighteningly prophetic. I just don't know the truth on the guy.

:shrug: It's like many things in life: curious, but inscrutable.

This thing was hashed over at great length in the fever swamp of the old "Military" forum here, years ago. True believers of any stripe are something of a mystery to me: my temperament seems incapable of it, and there is no point in arguing with them....

"How fading and insipid do all Objects accost us that are not convey'd in the Vehicle of Delusion?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Because an honest man doesn't seek the freebie.

We discovered that the note that Vreeland wrote in jail could not have possibly been interpreted as a warning of anything. We discovered that during the time he was supposed to have been in Moscow uncovering the 9/11 plot he was actually in the custody of police in St. Thomas, Ontario.

Unless of course, the plot now involved the Canadian Government ... ;)

Duplicate post.

I'm unaware of anything going on with him currently (buzz is he might actually be dead, but I don't know).

Minstrel Boy is a good one to ask about this.

In the Latest Breaking News forum it says he was arrested yesterday. This is the only time I have ever heard of him. Interesting, very interesting.

This is an interesting development. I'll be keeping a close eye on this.

He was in jail last time, when he supposedly penned the infamous letter predicting the 911 attack.

Not sure what they had him in there for -- possibly something about his 'papers' -- don't recall. There were supposedly child prostitution allegations, and warrants out for him in several places; I forget if there was also one for either racketeering or extortion -- some financial charge. I don't know about any of this -- I thought it was interesting that he claimed to have had foreknowledge of the WTC attacks, he supposedly submitted a sealed envelope to the OPP while he was imprisoned up there. He'd made some sketches, some information he was supposedly privy to other than in the U.S. It's all very cloudy/shady, but the story from LBN the other day said there were warrants out against him in several states claiming the things I noted above.

He could be legit; he could be some nutcase. I don't know if we'll ever know the truth about Vreeland, since if the things he's claiming are true, the best case scenario for the 'men in black' would be to discredit him. That doesn't necessarily mean they'd have to -- he might be just another attention-seeker claiming to know things he doesn't, or things he can't prove.

Remember how the VRWC went after him with the "child molester" bullshit?

I've heard too many things from both sides to make a call on Vreeland's credibility, actually. His attorney seems more credible than he does -- but I don't know what that's really worth. He may also be a very small pawn in a much bigger chess game. He may not even know who the players are. Once in a while, the pawn gets the spotlight -- but it's usually unintentional. He may have a very small part of somebody's 'big picture' -- but who knows if it's accurate, even if he's telling the truth as he knows it?

I've read too much Philip K. Dick not to think there's plenty going on that we don't know about unless something goes awry with the system. At the same time, I know frequently the bit-part players are told only what they need to know to play their parts, and that even if they spill it all, it may not be the whole story.

"child prostitution" charges. Some say he has foreknowledge of upcoming attacks, and that's why they've decided to take him into custody.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/vreeland.html



If one believes this fool, they believe Saddam was a REAL threat to the US. The guys a freak.

:hi:

is that intelligence agencies employ con men. It's part of the screen of plausible deniability.

Read what Gary Sick, Jimmy Carter's former chief aide on the Iran hostage crisis, says in his book October Surprise:

Such characters are a researcher's nemesis; they are meant to be. When the CIA or other intelligence agencies need to hire a "contractor," who may be required to carry out acts that are potentially dangerous and of questionable legality, they look for three things: a specific and useful skill (a knowledge of money-laundering, perhaps); a romantic streak that glorifies both the secrecy and the risk; and a propensity for exageration and trouble. One former CIA officer, David MacMichael, has said that the agency looks for these freelancers at small community airports and gun ranges - places where men go to excape the boredom of everyday life. Looking for adventure, these men are fascinated by the imagined glamour and excitement of the world of espionage. MacMichael said that often, after one or two assignments, the agency will put a contractor on a case in which he runs afoul of the law. The contractor finds himself in a compromising position - nothing so major as to put him permanently out of commission, but significant enough that if he ever starts telling tales out of school about covert operations, his record will discredit his testimony.

Vreeland is a scoundrel by every account, but he did pass on the "Let one happen, stop the rest" warning from a Toronto jail cell before 9/11; his claim that Canadian diplomat Marc Bastien had been poisoned in Moscow has been proven correct; the Pentagon unwittingly acknowledged his lengthy service record when it was called in open court, by relying on archived records undamaged by the 9/11 attack from which he had not been purged (the prosecution argued, incredibly, that Vreeland must have hacked into the Pentgon files from his jail cell); Leo Wanta, longtime intelligence asset who destabilized the Soviet ruble in the '80s at the White House request, confirmed Vreeland was an operative of the Office of Naval Intelligence; and his lawyers did receive death threats and found their files vandalized.

This isn't just third-hand knowledge for me. Vreeland's Canadian attorney is an old friend of mine. He freely admits that Vreeland withheld information from him and on occasion lied, but that the Pentagon withheld and lied as well. Vreeland is beyond a doubt ONI, and stumbled upon something.

NT!

Vreeland could be mischaracterizing what he saw, to possibly protect himself or others. He may have thought it safer to blame Iraq than his own government, while still getting out the warning. I have no trouble believing that.

Or he may have been purposefully fed lies to serve a disinformation campaign that was later abandoned. He may have been meant to find it, because it would help implicate Iraq in the plot. (The CIA acted similarly in Mexico City before the Kennedy assassination, falsifying a link between Oswald and the Soviet Union's chief hitman in the Western hemisphere.)

He knows more than he's disclosed, and everything he's said hasn't been true. Vreeland's a frustrating character. Like Gary Sick said about such men in my post above, he's "meant to be."

he's full of mularky. :P

to be in Moscow, he was in a Canadian jail. (Just for starters) So, unless the Canadians are now conspiring with the US Government to paint this guy a criminal, we've got nada.

He also claims that Saddam was a very serious threat to the US and was involved in 911. I don't buy what this fool is sellin'

:hi:

Vreeland was in a Canadian jail when Marc Bastien, the Canadian diplomat with whom he'd claimed to have been in contact, was found dead. Vreeland said he believed he'd been poisoned, though cause of death was originally determined to be "natural causes." In January of this year, a Quebec coroner agreed with Vreeland.

I am not going to spend too much time on this guy, because I think he's a con man and I think he's totally full of shit.

We discovered that the note that Vreeland wrote in jail could not have possibly been interpreted as a warning of anything. We discovered that during the time he was supposed to have been in Moscow uncovering the 9/11 plot he was actually in the custody of police in St. Thomas, Ontario. We discovered that his navy records indicate that he didn't make it through basic training and that he presented false identification when he signed up. We found evidence that he didn't graduate high school. We discovered that the alleged relentless drug dealer was actually Vreeland's brother-in-law. We found that Vreeland had an extensive criminal record, having spent the majority of his adult life in jail and that he was wanted in at least six states. We found the victims of the alleged frauds which Vreeland is accused of committing in Michigan and many people in law enforcement who related details of Vreeland's alleged crimes.

Let's just say, I'd be willing to wager "as a Twin Cities" resident that October will come and go without ado. I feel safe after learning about this guy.

Interestingly enough he's still alive and found it necessary to scam people in spite of his so called 4000 plus monthly salary? :eyes:

Sorry I think this guy is perhaps mentally ill in a real sense, and may even believe some of his delusional stories? But, I certainly don't.

well enough not to bother. Some guys on a college radio station made it their mission to prove Vreeland a liar, which was a pointless exercise, because everyone admits his is. He is a con man. And, as Gary Sick says, that makes him a perfect intelligence operative.

Believe me, Vreeland's lawyer, with his reputation at stake, checked out his story much more thoroughly than a campus DJ.

the issue at hand.

Anyone has the right to an attorney, OJ's attorneys checked him out too ...

Guess I'll catch ya November 1st. If there is an attack in the TC area, I'll personally apologize, if not I suspect we shant hear much more about Mr. Vreeland.

to eat his tinfoil hat. :hi:

:hi:

The notoriety alone was worth way more that the money they earned in billable hours.

his lawyer, IN A CANADIAN COURT, placed a call to the Pentagon switchboard to verify his name on the roster. The call could not be completed as Vreeland was sitting there with him. However the attempt to reach him was made. "Shall I take a message?" You want fries with that?

The Pentagon accidentally verified Vreeland's rank and service record. It was such a huge gaffe, the prosecution argued that Vreeland must have hacked into the Pentagon's computers from his jail cell. Now who has more credibility?

Which is it, Mr Prosector: is he a "simple con man," or an evil genius who can hack the Pentagon from prison?

please?

In a January 10, 2002 tactic worthy of Perry Mason, with the greatest possible risk to his client if it failed, attorney Slansky got the judge to agree to let him call the Pentagon from open court. Using a speaker phone, in front of at least six witnesses, Slansky first dialed directory information and got a number for the Pentagon switchboard. Then, calling that number he asked the Department of Defense operator to locate the office of Lt. Delmart Vreeland. Within moments the operator had confirmed Vreeland’s posting, his rank as a Lieutenant O-3, his room number and given Slansky his direct-dial number.

All of this is a part of the court record.

...the Crown Solicitor argued that Vreeland, who has been in jail and without access to a computer for thirteen months, had somehow cracked the Pentagon’s personnel records and inserted his name, an office number, and telephone extension into the Pentagon database.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/1252_rev_12802.html

I can vouch for this, too.

Also, Slansky received an unexpergated copy of Vreeland's service record, which ran over 1,000 pages, and was in absolute contradiction to the Pentagon's assertion that Vreeland had left the service in 1986.

he also claims that he "invented" the Star Wars system.

On KPFK yesterday, Mike Ruppert (FTW, Crossing the Rubicon) mentioned that Vreeland was a con-artist, and that he would feed Ruppert mounds and mounds of junk information. Apparently, though, the warnings he gave about 9/11 were true.

Ruppert mentioned that Vreeland had tried to get in contact with him, and that he was warning of another attack; Ruppert kind of dismissed the idea, as just another red herring from a con.

Now some are saying that Vreeland DOES, in fact, have valid information about an upcoming attack on American soil. This is why he was arrested, so conveniently, on child prostitution charges yesterday; Karl Schwarz has affirmed that this is a concerted effort to destroy Vreeland's little credibility (Schwarz said something to the effect, "This is how they ruin people").

I'm taking Vreeland's warning very seriously. I don't know anything more than this man was smeared, and that he has information on an upcoming, pre-election plot.

That was the most detail I have heard about the most recent Vreeland related news. Though no expert, I know about Vreeland's previous warning and history, but all I've gleaned about the present warning is that Vreeland has again issued another warning about an attack on the Twin Cities, with it maybe coming sometime around next weekend. Your post adds a little detail and helped me gain a little focus on it. Thanks for that

So "some" are now saying that there is something to this latest warning. Do you know who these people are and/or what/why they believe there is something to this new warning?

And do you have any other info about the nature of this attack? Is it another terrorist attack (or made to look like one) and any info on the mode of attack?

I have no clue about details concerning that. Try reading up on the Vreeland thread in General Discussion, since much of what you're looking for has been discussed there.

I was directed there after I made a post about Vreeland in the 2nd Karl Schwarz thread; Karl mentioned that Mike Vreeland was probably set up, and that this kind of smear-job is par for the course. To be honest, I had forgotten the name "Vreeland", as it was little more than 9/11 trivia for a year, but after a mention Mike Ruppert made during a radio show, my ears perked up. I'm just as curious as you are, about this.

Vreeland is claiming 4 one Megaton bombs in the 'Twin Cities' "soon".

Make of it what you will.

Then why are there so many threads on it?

.

read the last couple of posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=924780&mesg_id=924780

Every questions produces links, with no explanations.

And those are the best cases. Often, the person asking questions is attacked.

The question is "Can someone post a CLEAR explanation of the Vreeland threat?"

Obviously, you can't

just posted links out of courtesy. Very sorry I bothered now, obviously I'll learn from my mistake.

and by the way I've never attacked you and don't deserve your rudeness

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

start reading the links and not ask others to do the work for you!

Why wouldn't you want to post a clear explanation of whatever it is that's threatening the lives of innocent people?

and linked. The research has been done for over 2 years here at DU. It's all right here for you to read. Why should anyone assist you and your rudeness.

You gave a link, not to a post, but to an entire thread. You said to read the last few posts, which I did.

None of them had a clear explanation. Please provide a link the post which you think provides a clear explanation, or you can cut and paste the text into this thread, if you prefer.

It's very odd that so many posters claim there is a clear explanation but cannot produce a link to the post where that clear explanation exists.

there is not one. It's a long and involved story, you have the search option use it. Vreeland

take your pick

Here's what the text says:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=924780&mesg_id=925709&page=

I dont know who this guy is, but they went after Scott Ritter the same way.

So the police just happened to conduct a "sex sting" operation against the one man who had exposed the lies of our war-mad rulers from the inside. On the eve of war, as hundreds of thousands protest in the streets, this staunch Republican and solid family man who has become one of the War Party's most formidable enemies is suddenly "exposed" as a child molester.

All this says, and not very clearly, is that Vreeland was arrested on a sex charge, and that "they" did the same thing to Ritter.

And the link in that thread is to a story about Ritter. Like all the requests for info on this, it only produces links to posts with links, none of which have a clear explanation.

Funny how people know of a threat to innocent lives, yet they're so reluctant to explain what they think the threat is, and why they vbelieve the threat may be real.

Spelling it out for you, Post #48 in this thread. The text of which reads:

Vreeland is claiming 4 one Megaton bombs in the 'Twin Cities' "soon".

Make of it what you will.

anything else is sheer negligence

The question I have is whether Vreeland has told anyone ELSE (besides somebody here) that story or whether it is all just a scare tactic or a charade by Vreeland.

I will say one thing.

Vreeland, if he has anything true to say, did the right thing by sharing it with our DUer and our DUer did the right thing by sharing it with us.

Hopefully NOTHIUNG will happen.

But I expect ANYTHING from the BFEE - including this

That assumes there's some truth to this matter, and as it stands now, we don't even have a statement from Vreeland about it. What we have is a DUer CLAIMING that Vreeland said this.

Vreeland, if he has anything true to say, did the right thing by sharing it with our DUer and our DUer did the right thing by sharing it with us.

Absolutely wrong. For one thing, Vreeland has shared NOTHING with "us". Vreeland SUPPOSEDLY told someone he knows, who happens to be a DUer, about this.

Secondly, if WMD's are gonna go off in a major US city, telling a DUer is far from what needs to be done.

Thirdly, I have found your postings in this matter to be highly suspect. In some posts, you raise the alarm, while in others you play coy and say "It's probably nothing, but...."

the Moussaoui was falling.

that's called superstition.

resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans. Considering this fact, we might be better served by full investigation of all terrorist strike warnings, even if these warnings come from less than perfectly reliable sources -- just like the way the Secret Service investigates all threats on the President's life, whether or not they were written by grade schooler with a crayon.

And that's called circumspection, not superstition, Mr. Hume.

prior to 9-11.

You say (my responses in caps):


No it doesn't NEED TO BE investigated


That assumes there's some truth to this matter, and as it stands now, we don't even have a statement from Vreeland about it. What we have is a DUer CLAIMING that Vreeland said this.

I BELIEVE GOD, BUSH n' CHENEY WHEN HE SAYS VREELAND CALLED HIM, BEFORE ANYONE REALLY KNEW WHO HE WAS, AND TOLD HIM THESE THINGS. GB&C iIS VERY RELIABLE IMHO.

Me: Vreeland, if he has anything true to say, did the right thing by sharing it with our DUer and our DUer did the right thing by sharing it with us.

Sangho: Absolutely wrong. For one thing, Vreeland has shared NOTHING with "us". Vreeland SUPPOSEDLY told someone he knows, who happens to be a DUer, about this.

REREAD MY STATEMENT. VREELAND SHARED IT WITH GB&C AS I SAID.

Secondly, if WMD's are gonna go off in a major US city, telling a DUer is far from what needs to be done.

NOT NECESSARILY. IF VREELAND FEARED FOR HIS LIFE AND WANTED THE INFO TO GET OUT QUICKLY TO BOTH PROTECT HIMSELF AND MAKE SURE LOTS OF PEOPLE KNEW QUICKLY, IT WAS A SMART THING TO DO. HE ASKED TO TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MAY HAVE GOTTEN ARRESTED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE HIS STORY WAS TOLD. CONTACTING GB&C INSURED THAT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WOULD INSTANTLY KNOW AND SO WOULD THE MEDIA. EVEN LIZ EDWARDS AND CHRIS HEINZ READ THIS BOARD. IT WAS A SMART THING TO DO.

Thirdly, I have found your postings in this matter to be highly suspect. In some posts, you raise the alarm, while in others you play coy and say "It's probably nothing, but...."

THE QUOTE "It's probably nothing, but...." CAME FROM MINSTREL BOY'S BLOG NOT FROM ME.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS PROBABLY NOTHING. I DID SAY IT WAS HIGHLY SUSPECT AND THAT MY CONTACTS SAID HE WAS "A TOTAL FRAUD" BUT I CONSISTENTLY SAID MY GOAL WAS TO MAKE SURE IT WAS PROPERLY INVESTIGATED BY LA3W ENFORCEMENT AND THE MEDIA. WE ARE THE MEDIA NOW IN MANY WAYS. I RAISED ALARMS. I SENT THE STORY TO MY MEDIA CONTACTS AND THOSE CLOSE TO THE INTEL COMMUNITY AND I MADE SURE REPORTERS ON THE GROUND COVERING THIS STORY KNEW. THAT ASSURES THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL KNOW. AND THAT IS WHAT I WANTED:

LAW ENFORCEMENT TO INVESTIGATE VREELAND'S CLAIMS AND THE MEDIA TO KNOW SO THAT VREELAND WOULD NOT GET "WELLSTONED" OR "HATFIELDED"

You have no credibility, so I don't see your vouching for GBnC helping his credibility.

You have

1) Accused Kerry of being a PNAC-er

2) accused Kerry of being "pro-war"

3) criticized Kerry for owning houses he doesn't own

4) criticized Kerry for marrying a wealthy women

5) criticized Kerry for marrying a woman who was once married to a repuke.

6) criticized Kerry for being a member of SnB

You have no credibility.

Vreeland's story played out for two years like a Hollywood script, and included the requisite dramatic court scene, when a judge allowed Vreeland to call the Pentagon in open court and an officer confirmed that Lieut. D. Vreeland was listed in its phone directory. Vreeland also claimed he knew that Canadian Embassy employee Marc Bastien was murdered before the official cause of death in 2000 was released, which stated Bastien had been poisoned.

...

Then in September, 2002, after spending an evening preparing for his case with Slansky, Vreeland disappeared. Police went to his apartment, which his lawyers called "ransacked."

Galati believed Vreeland had been kidnapped by American agents — a fear that led to Galati's decision last December to drop his high-profile cases involving national security.

Reached yesterday, Galati said he believes Vreeland is still working as an American agent.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1098568216092&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968705899037

And regarding the moving of this thread, allow me to say :eyes:

is that Vreeland has issued another warning, but no one knows what info his warning is based on. Did I get that right?

It sounds to me that the credibility of this warning is entirely dependent on whether or not one thinks Vreeland has credibility. I don't see anything in that report that adds anything to the credibility of this story other than it is Vreeland saying so.

The fact is that Vreeland told - apparently, at least ONE Duer, that he was on the track of those planning a nuke attack on the Twin Cities on or around Halloween.

I have forwarded this story to reporters covering this case and to others.

Vreeland's claims are generally being dismissed as fraudulent --- but given the 9-11 allegations and his claims generally I think there is the possibility, at least, that he has some info.

The fact that his lawyer in Toronto received death threats and says TODAY that he believes Vreeland is or was a US government agent, makes this a story we should follow and investigate further.

Those of us who believe in MIHOP or LIHOP (and know there were 9-11 warnings clearer than bells which were dismissed or ignored) makes it critical that law enforcement and media follow up QUICKLY and with all seriousness DESPITE this guys supposed track record.

You say that Vreeland told at least one DUer. That is wrong

One DUer CLAIMS that he has spoken to Vreeland about this matter. Neither you nor I know if that is true.

The fact that his lawyer in Toronto received death threats and says TODAY that he believes Vreeland is or was a US government agent, makes this a story we should follow and investigate further

Why does what his lawyer says make it a story we should follow? It's just another claim that no one can prove.

Those of us who believe in MIHOP or LIHOP (and know there were 9-11 warnings clearer than bells which were dismissed or ignored) makes it critical that law enforcement and media follow up QUICKLY and with all seriousness DESPITE this guys supposed track record.

Investigate what? Vreeland has provided no details. I'm not sure what you think the authorities should do specifically. How do they "investigate" something as nebulous as "someone we don't know or trust says there'll be an attack someday in the Twin Cities"? Do they surround the city and perform and house-to-house search?

followup

as we speak the FBI is on the case which I think is great.

I hope they do not dismiss it as easily as you do and know how to investigate seriously.

I also hope Vreeland has some detailed info for them and not just a vague scare story.

You claim I have "dismissed" this when I haven't. All I said is that there is no "NEED" to investigate this, at least not based on the complete absence of corroborating evidence you have presented.

I also hope Vreeland has some detailed info for them and not just a vague scare story.

Thanks for confirming that all you have is some vague scare story.

but we don't know upon what he's basing it. (Or, I should add, at least I don't.)

I believe Vreeland is ONI - see, for one instance, the call to the Pentagon in open court - but I don't believe we can take him at his word. His word, however, needs to be noted. Discerning truth from disinformation - which he may not be wittingly spreading - is almost impossible for us at this stage. But I think establishing a public record at this time is important in the event of, an event.

There are a couple of other considerations. In the LBN thread, Be_Here_Now alluded to having heard, through another channel, of an imminent bombing threat to the Twin Cities. And there are also several reports of an emptying of the armories, and massive military movements out of the region.

that it is a nuke threat with 4 bombs. I assume that was told to a DUer by Vreeland.

I also pray to God that Vreeland is telling the authorities this story and that reporters are asking about it and that Homeland Security is ON it.

Only time will tell if (or not) whether there is such a plot.

But reporters covering the story are aware of it, Reporters are being made to PROVE their credentials before interviewing Vreeland (which means there are inquiries being made) AND Vreeland is quoted as saying he wants to talk to government authorities.

At this point if the FBI or HSA have not interviewed him then they are seriously negligent.

We ALL know what happens when there is such negligence and if such threats are ignored.

THAT is why I neither dismiss the story or endorse it.

I just say the right people need to investigate it and we should here at DU share ALL that we know.

Why do you think he is ONI?

This guy:



There's an important and balanced 6-part series on Vreeland by Sander Hicks called "Wildcard" (though I can't get the link to work now for some reason - http://www.guerrillanews.com/intelligence/doc749.html - but some background notes can be read here: http://sanderhicks.com/vreelandsuppfiles.html.

In it, Hicks connects with Wanta, who's a shady, rather senior operative from the Reagan/Bush White House (he helped destabilize the ruble), and was Somalia's ambassador for Switzerland and Canada (!) in the early 90s. (For more on him, see "Who is Leo Wanta?" http://www.aci.net/kalliste/wanta.htm)

Wanta asked Vreeland a number of questions to which only an operative should know the answers, and he passed with flying colours. Wanta was persuaded he was ONI.

There's also, significantly, the Pentagon call in an open Toronto court, confirming Vreeland's rank and office. Vreeland's lawyers also received, by backchannel, his unexpergated service record, which ran over a thousand pages.

His lawyers also asked CSIS contacts to quietly check him out, and they all came back with yes, he's an operative.

Why believe Wanta when he's a Reagan/bush* operative? If this Vreeland is being used for disinfo, of course the repukes would want people to think he's ONI, so they lie about it.

MB doesn't know if Wanta asked Vreeland those questions. All we know is that Wanta CLAIMS that he asked Vreeland these questions and Wanta CLAIMS that Vreeland answered the way an ONI would.

There's also, significantly, the Pentagon call in an open Toronto court, confirming Vreeland's rank and office.

If MB is referring to what I think he's referring, then what was confirmed is that there was a listing for a "D Vreeland" at the Pentagon. Nothing confirmed that this Vreeland was the "D Vreeland" at the Pentagon.

Vreeland's lawyers also received, by backchannel, his unexpergated service record, which ran over a thousand pages.

This is a CLAIM that has been made, but not corroborated by independent parties, by Vreeland's lawyers, who are not disinterested parties.

His lawyers also asked CSIS contacts to quietly check him out, and they all came back with yes, he's an operative.

Another CLAIM, presented as fact.

It seems there aren't any FACTS that corroborate Vreeland's claims. That doesn't mean they're not true, but it does mean that there is no reason to believe them, and that some DUers are trying very hard to misportray CLAIMS as FACTS.

And if I'm wrong about this, and MB was referring to something else, then I'd appreciate hearing about it

was a third-party witness to the Wanta-Vreeland exchange. Hicks is someone I trust.

As for his lawyers' claims, they were made to me personally. Slansky has been a friend since grade school, and I trust him implicitly. Of course I wouldn't expect you to. I'm just bearing witness.

So you belief this based on Hick's credibility. Nothing wrong with that, if you know that Hick's has that level of credibility.

Could you explain why Hicks is that credible?

And for full disclosure purposes, I just want to say that I'm not impressed when "someone on the Internet" offers personal testimony about the credibility of another "someone on the Internet". In fact, it often has the opposite effect. I get suspicious when someone tries to use their own personal credibility to push anothers, particularly when that person is unknown to me, and therefore has little credibility with me.

And I'm not saying this to accuse you of anything. It's just as likely that you told me this because it's another bit of info and you want to help me inform myself. I said it because I want you to know that what persuades me is the FACTS. Corroborated facts.

So why should I, a poster who knows little to nothing about Hicks, believe his endorsement of Vreeland?

called "Wildcard" - the GNN link isn't working right now - you may see, at least, why I give him credibility here. He's not a sucker for Vreeland's bullshit.

Generally, I find his work rigorous, and serious. He doesn't indulge in wild speculation. He gave Richard Ben Veniste a very tough interview, asking largely unasked and important questions about Atta and the Florida flight school's drug connections, and also Ben Veniste's own history as lawyer for Iran/Contra drugrunner and Bush Sr buddy, Barry Seal (dec.).

As for my own claims, I hear you. Information doesn't get much more worthless than "some guy on an anonymous web board says." Though I link to my blog, which identifies myself. ("Ah!" I hear you say. "How can we know that's really you?") But the choice is what? Remaining silent? If I've established credibility with anyone here, they can be assured I'm not making this up. To those I haven't, I'm just some guy, or perhaps a fucking kook. That's how it goes.

Though I'm not sure how an interview by Hicks can convince me of his credibility, I'll look for the interview and see what it holds.

This requires a depth of research that you don't seem interested in pursuing. If you don't trust DUers in general, why are you asking us for a Vreeland summary rather than simply doing the research for yourself?

Personally, I find your selected and directed application of skepticism on this thread rather incredible. As you've clearly illustrated, whom one "trusts" sometimes depends primarily on who is saying what one wants to hear.

I notice you don't ever mention it.

I also notice you assume I'm not interested in research, though you give no reason for saying that.

If you don't trust DUers in general

I trust whats been demonstrated. I distrust those who make claims and show hostility to any and all that ask questions.

As you've clearly illustrated, whom one "trusts" sometimes depends primarily on who is saying what one wants to hear.

Actually, that would be those who are pushing this story, who have repeatedly claimed credibility for Vreeland and others based on their own personal knowledge. I, on the other hand, have expressed a willingness to beleive either side, so long as they can demonstrate that they have credibility.

So far, I've seen claims of credibility, but nothing to back them up. I've Seventhson, who has made some of the most outrageous claims on DU (and who once had to publicly apologize to DU) try to vouchsafe for GBnC, as if Seventhson had credibility to spare.

coming from you.

for the record GB&C has expressed his doubts clearly to me and to many. NOBODY is vouching for Vreeland's credibility. All of us here who care have consistently said it is TOO SERIOUS to take any chances on ignoring him or in trying to claim he is a liar - BECAUSE he MIGHT have info that could PREVENT an attack.

I care not a whit whether YOU believe a word I say or anyone else here.

What I care about is that the proper authroities and nedia investigate to get THE FACTS and not just opinions of you, me or anyone else.


Peace, dude

The FBI is on it and that is a GREAT thing.

So is the media.

THEY, hopefully, will get the facts and Hopefully, we will know at least some of what they discover through their investigations.

You vouchsafed for GBnC's credibility and GBnC (adn others) have vouchsafed Vreeland.

BECAUSE he MIGHT have info that could PREVENT an attack.

But for some odd reason, you won't explain why you think he MIGHT have such info.

What I care about is that the proper authroities and nedia investigate to get THE FACTS and not just opinions of you, me or anyone else.

So you don't care about what I and others DUer's think about this, so you post it on DU? That makes sense. You want the "proper authorities and the media" to investigate, so what do you do?

You post on DU.

Yep, that makes sense.

GB&C told me (told all of us) the things Vreeland said to him. If there is ANY possibility these things are true in whole or in ANY paret, then they should be investigated. I believe GB&C which is WHY I think he MIGHT have info which might prevent an attack.

I believe THAT Vreeland toild him these things. I do NOT autmatically believe Vreeland told him the truth.

The BEST way in my opinion to both PROTECT Vreeland from potential BFEE harm AND alert the media AND law enforcement is to post it here on DU..
Since only GB&C spoke with Vreeland (as far as I know) only HE could alert the authorities with the facts. One way of alerting the authorities, in my opinion, is to decvlare the information in a public way so that there is NO QUESTION that the right people will get it .

And I assume the feds and homeland security and FBI monitor this site for open xource info all the time. If they were awake at all they would have been on this like white on rice. So I think it was smart. You may disagree and I might have proceeded differently but frankly, this shit, if you are close to it like GB&C is, is achingly and earth-shatteringly frightening.

I commend him for his courage.

You should too, whether you agree with the way he did it or not. He came forward despite tremendous possible risks. He came forward to his friends AND to the public in a way that potentially helps us ALL.

I HOPE Vreeland is totally wrong but ewven still he has made me aware of very scarey things we all should be aware of.

YOU just said that all you care about is making sure the authorities investigate this, but YOU never explain WHY you're posting about this on DU.

GB&C told me (told all of us) the things Vreeland said to him.

But, but, but YOU just said NO ONE vouched for Vreeland. Now you're admitting that GBnC is vouching for Vreeland.

The BEST way in my opinion to both PROTECT Vreeland from potential BFEE harm AND alert the media AND law enforcement is to post it here on DU..

Really? Posting on DU offers protection? If only Wellstone knew

And I assume the feds and homeland security and FBI monitor this site for open xource info all the time. If they were awake at all they would have been on this like white on rice. So I think it was smart. You may disagree and I might have proceeded differently but frankly, this shit, if you are close to it like GB&C is, is achingly and earth-shatteringly frightening.

So you want HSA to know about it, and instead of calling HSA, you post it on DU? You're concerned that the authorites might KILL Vreeland, but you also want to inform them that Vreeland's back?

I HOPE Vreeland is totally wrong but ewven still he has made me aware of very scarey things we all should be aware of.

You mean like Kerry's real-estate, or Theresa's dead husband? Both of those gave you a scare in the past.

The ones where Vreeland is credible, or the ones where you say you don't know if this is credible?

The ones where you said NO ONE vouched for Vreeland, or the ones where you said GBnC did vouch for Vreeland?

Or the ones where you said that vreeland was afraid to contact the authorities because they were going to kill him, or the ones where you said you WANTED to contact the authorities?

I personally have found Minstrel Boy, for example, to be a highly credible source. IMHO, his only agenda is uncovering the truth. He's also an insightful analyst with impeccable communication skills.

However, this is merely my personal opinion. I don't expect you to adopt it without question. Instead, I suggest you read his blog:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com

or a sufficient subset of his DU posts:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=+site:www.democraticunderground.com+%22Minstrel+Boy%22+Democratic+Underground

to form your own opinion, much like many of us here have read your posts over the years to form our own opinions of your credibility.

OK?

.

I only know one - GBnC

Who is the 2nd DUer who has been in contact with Vreeland?

He is also, as was proven in a Toronto court and supported by other covert operatives, an asset of the Office of Naval Intelligence

Vreeland has not PROVEN that he is ONI. That's an opinion masqaurading as fact

Just like the prosecution argued in the court transcript!

Note how he believes that a DUer was contacted by Vreeland, even though he doesn't KNOW that to be true. All he knows is that someone CLAIMS to have spoken to Vreeland. He also gives credibility to the DUers who claim to have inside info and he assumes that info came from Vreeland, even though there is not one shred of evidence to suggest this.

So of course he believes the stories that give Vreeland credibility.

We have our perspectives. Yours is clear. I consider mine to be more informed than yours.

I thought it was seventhson who made the ONI claim and he has been misleading about this subject

if anyone would like to catch up

Mike Vreeland
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=408139

A disturbing trend re: LIHOP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=355668
Lawyer quits terror cases after death threat
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=847147

"I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with planes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1342532

Brief report from the Toronto 9/11 Citizens Inquiry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1685665

Indira Singh/PTech deep moles in FAA help accomplish 9/11! WTF??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2203166

9-11 'Drills': Interview of Stanley Hilton, Sept 10, 2004
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2387342

bin Laden's money flow leads back to Midland, Texas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=610051

Clarke just hinted strongly that Flight 93 on 9/11 was shot down...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1323210

The 9/11 whistleblowers-get-screwed data dump
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1293947

An atheist converted! I've seen the light!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1288172

LIHOP Doubters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1275670

Don't miss Bush press conference clip re: 9/11 advance warning
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=918713



http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index-vreeland.html

VREELAND

12/14/03
Post-9/11, this doesn't seem all that weird
Rocco Galati quits.
Read Now

09/25/02
After a six month investigation, Guerrilla News Network breaks Sander Hicks' in-depth story on Delmart Vreeland. We're grateful to see Sander Hicks' story in print. Until Mike Ruppert's forthcoming book, "Crossing the Rubicon," is published, he will not make any comments on the Vreeland story unless there is a major breaking development. As Ruppert has noted before, "this story is not over."
Read Now

04-22-02
Briefing Paper, The Case for Bush Administration Foreknowledge of the Attacks of September 11th.
Read Now

04-9-02
An Open Letter From "Mike" Vreeland to David Corn of The Nation and Norman Solomon of FAIR.
Read Now

04-04-02
"Mike" Vreeland Speaks - 35 Questions and Answers from the US Navy Officer in Canada Who warned of the 9-11 Attacks
Read Now

03-15-02
DELMART "Mike" Vreeland in Safe House - All Canadian Charges Dropped - Temporary Refugee Status Granted
Read Now

03-14-02
Delmart "Mike" Vreeland ordered released from Toronto Jail in a surprise hearing while his attorneys were not present. The judge in the case publicly announced the address where Vreeland, the Naval officer who predicted 9-11 in a written warning, has been ordered to reside and announced curfew hours. The is the exact same pattern followed in the case of CIA operative and drug smuggler Barry Seal, gunned down by assassins in Baton Rouge Louisiana in 1986.
Read Now

03-03-02
Updates on the Mike Vreeland Story Naval Officer Who Gave Advance Warnings of 9-11 Attacked in Canadian Jail Canadian Government Resisting Attempts to Introduce Evidence In Extradition Hearings US and Canadian Positions Losing Credibility
Read Now

01-28-02
Dateline Toronto: The case of a US Navy officer jailed in Toronto exposes US government foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks. A call from open court to the Pentagon confirms rank, office number and telephone extension of Lt. Mike Vreeland who the Navy says was discharged as a Seaman in 1986. He wrote details of the 9-11 attacks in August!
Read Now

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I formerly worked at a Law Firm that Vree was a client.

There was no mention in his Extradition Hearing about Child Prostituion charges that the US wanted to Extradite him to the US.

It was only for misdemeanors and credit card fraud, as far that I was told by my former boss and Vree himself.

I believe the Child Prostituion charges are a set by the US government, possibly in their thinking, trying to somehow harm Vree.

But this won't happen, because God is on Vree's side, so I made it so, so I sent him.

Behold his Mighty Hand, with the Wings of Elijah by his side, yes even in prison.

Vreeland is a prophet in the time of Revelation, which is now. He holds one of the Heavenly Signs predicated in the Book of Revelation

Here is his sign:

http://www.nolajbs.net/images/eclipse.rev.doc

Oh who do you think who knows a whole lot of strange occurrences happening, Galati's poisioning, how about my poisioning too, or my property illegally being tresspassed on, wrongdoings, corruption, sleaziness, and so on and so forth, always being watched....

....because I worked at this lawfirm, during the time Vree was there.

Some of the things that happened to him, happened to many of us, so who believes who, or do you believe the ones who were there at that time.

RisingSun