A wealth of 9/11 information

1.) Cover-up

2.) Disinformation

3.) Propaganda

ALL of which include some verifiable facts...to give the appearance of credibility.

Mr. Lared is simply a disinformation agent...?

I just thought he was some kind of engineer who went to college at Drexel.

If anyone finds out, I will need to return my secret decoder ring, and I've grown rather fond of it.

a coverup, disinformation, or propganda, but I know the question would not be answered.

I left out "is similar to". (thanks m-atc) Sorry about that error.

On the other hand,
I've seen no definitive evidence that proves it ISN'T similar to the cover-up, disinformation and propaganda found in the Warren Commission Report.

We just have a difference of opinion about this. Didn't mean to be dissing your well-intentioned effort to expose more people to more Government information that's similar to the coverup, disinformation and propaganda found in the Warren Commission Report.

there is a certain quality about being predictable.

Mr. Linkman clearly presumes it is disinformation, otherwise the formula "I have seen no evidence it isn't disinformation" would not have been used: that indicates the default position, for Mr. Linkman, is that it is disinformation. This presumption is at the heart of just about all argument and "examination" of evidence by those who take such peculiar views of events as are often on display here, and it is why they are so impervious to argument from evidence. They do not hold views that have arisen from evidence; they begin with a view and seek to unearth evidence that might support it. The wish to find the necessary evidence to support the presumed case leads the searcher ever farther afield into more and more distorted selections and presentations of "evidence" that might be tortured into support of the thing it is so passionately wished to find some support for.

"The truth is out there...."

for some. For others ...... well, look around.

Seems he intentionally misrepresented an eyewitness statement. Doesn't that qualify as "disinformation"? Doesn't knowingly disseminating disinformation qualify the vehicle as "propaganda"?

a jerk and a liar.

sounds like a certain person in the White House now, doesn't it.

It IS potent, that's for sure.

They're of about the same value, especially in light of the fact that VonKleist chooses to misrepresent facts to sell his theory.

And, other than not including the entire quote of one person's eyewitness account, do you have any other complaint about the video?

You've probably seen his web site. 9/11 is just one of his topics. This man has a conspiracy theory for damn near everything.


As far as my issues with the video, my criticizm isn't that he edited an eyewitness statement, it's that he purposefully edited the statement in a way that changed the meaning.

I've glanced at the next 15 minutes of the video and I think I've found another gross misrepresentation, but I have to do some research first. I'll post my response to the next 15 minutes of the video sometime this week.

ANYTHING you can use to try and undermine the credibility of "In Plane Sight". So far, the video has taken a small hit because one alleged eyewitness's account wasn't included in toto. Of course, there was more than ONE eyewitness who believed that a missile had struck the Pentagon.
In addition to them, the U.S. Secretary of Defense himself said that's what happened.

You agree that it's only fair to evaluate the credibility of the BUSH 9/11 Conspiracy Theory by the same criteria, right? Good. Because, in the case of the OCT, it's credibility has been DESTROYED.

Remember: TED OLSON. (former U.S. Solicitor General & former "Clinton
Project" member...funded by far right-winger, Richard Melon Scaife).

TED lied about how Americans died, on 9/11.

The issue isn't that he edited a statement. It's that he intentionally chose to edit a statement in a way that changed its meaning. That alone calls the honesty of VonKleist and the video into question.

Just be greatful you don't have to try and defend Ted.

I'll try one more time to get an answer out of you.

What was Olson's lie on 9/11? You speak of it often, but never seem to be able to tell anyone what he said.

Do you have anything to offer other than superficial talking points endlessly repeated?

Do you know of anyone else who believes Ted didn't lie, or you the only one? "lared The Maverick"

should provide an answer.

BTW, nice spin. I didn't say he didn't lie, just asking you to tell me what he said that was a lie. I missed it and your response at least a dozen times already.

Cataloging VonKleist's obfuscations is a bigger project than I had planned.

On the other hand, you could have a field day with the implications of Ted's lies. After all, they go to the heart of the BUSH 9/11 CT. All you've come up with to criticize Dave von Kleist with is that he didn't include the full statement of one eyewitness.

You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Mike Walter wasn't the only eyewitness that talked about a missile. And, I'm not just referring to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who stated publicly that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by a missile striking it.

You aren't accusing Rumsfeld of obfuscating, are you?

btw - ever looked up the meaning of the word "obfuscate"?

As I recall, it was YOU who asked for my specific objections to "9/11 - In Plane Site". You're getting them.

I really have no interest in Ted Olson at this time. I wouldn't advise holding your breath waiting for my comments on his statements.

Obfuscate: make obscure or unclear

Yes, I feel that's what VonKleist is doing by misrepresenting evidence.