AboveTopSecret.com is a Government COINTELPRO Disinformation Operation

ATS BEWARE


AboveTopSecret.com - Disinfo Stooges?

A while ago I posted about an interesting encounter between the signs-of-the-times.org and abovetopsecret.com websites, as reported by Laura Knight-Jadczyk in her blog. Now it appears that a lawyer acting on behalf of ATS tried to get the Signs of the Times server shut down by using strong arm intimidation tactics. And this from a so-called "conspiracy site" with the motto of "Deny Ignorance"!

I've been an interested reader of SOTT for some time, but this latest episode really has me wondering if they're on to something here. Why is a site that claims to be the "#1 conspiracy discussion portal on the 'net" getting so upset over a piece of 9-11 analysis done by another website? To the point of getting lawyers to harrass their webhost with stories of "death threats"? Seriously, what is the big deal?

In my opinion, it's starting to look like ATS have something to hide, and it could well be government connections. If that's the case, then what are the implications regarding what SOTT have been saying about 9-11? Could they be one of the few sites on the 'net with a good idea of what really happened on that day - thus requiring they be silenced in as covert a manner as possible? "Plausible Deniability" and all that?

Ironically, the lawyer involved works for a firm that can be found on the 'net at mofo.com. Appropriate, or what?

If you're interested in reading the whole saga, SOTT have just published a synopsis on the ATS attack on their latest daily news page. It's well worth reading all the posts regarding the subject on LJK's blog, too.

It's probably just coincidence, but it's interesting that this seems to have happened just after actor Charlie Sheen spoke out in support of the 9-11 truth movement, too. Are the American people starting to realise that Bush and Co are giving them the proverbial "mushroom treatment"?

Can i ask a question.

If ATS is all about denying ignorance, why do you delete or refuse certain things to be posted..
You have not allowed me to post anything i wanted to in this thread..
That must be because you did screw up big time with The Sign Of The Times..
We are on to you
i recommend peeps to leave here straight away.
Not letting people post the truth is denying ignorance and the board on this forum are the most guilty.
We are on to you.
We gave you a choice, you didnt accept it.
Wrong choice.

Here is the link to what im trying to post
www.signs-of-the-times.org...

link not working...

Besides, it could be the other way around? Signs of times stating that an attack was made on them by ATS, thereby forming negativity around ATS... why? Because it is this site that is trying to uncover what is hidden, and Signs is trying to hide it... works both ways for the time being. (or maybe Signs is just jealous of the attention...?)

Just because Signs says that a lawyer demanded that they close doesn't make it true... could be true... just because that lawyer said he was acting on behalf of ATS doesn't mean that he did... could be.

Again... as I can understand is ATS tradition, base your accusations on hard proof rather then hearsay.

[edit on 27/4/07 by flice]

[edit on 27/4/07 by flice]

This is the correct link
Edit: the link cannot be posted??? When you replace the # by signs[dash]of[dash]the[dash]times.org it does work. How strange....

I must say, do you really think you can come here and make such claims without being kicked off the board? It will be interesting to see what happens to this thread and the OP.

The answer if ATS is connected or not may lie in the responses.

My initial response is: It seems strange to react like this on a blog, even if it is questioning or attacking another board. What is even more odd is the use of a lawyer from a very expensive firm. I would not expect this kind of punch available to a forum which uses advertising for funding.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by Truth4hire]

"I did a trace route on www.abovetopsecret.com... the Node Name is listed and maintained by the government.
IP Address 213.206.128 213.206.129 213.206.130
Node Name Gov-bb21-lan-14 Gov-bb22-lan-15 Gov-bb23-lan-16
Location Langley, Virginia
MS 60
Network Used whois.nic.mil (for military network information)
It was difficult to get the IP Address, It was spoofed and looped over 9 times. Anyway Langley, Virginia is where the CIA headquarters is. I'm more than concerned."

Does it start making sense to you? The Above Top Secret website is GOVERNMENT sponsored. By deception...

It would be nieve to assume that you are NOT monitored at all times when using any method of information sharing.

The more technology you use, the easier it is for them to keep tabs on you..

But even though these sites are monitored, that should not deter you, because you have nothing to hide anyway! The last thing you want to do is play into their hands, aka, being afraid/fearful of them.

Get outtahere. I´ve tried that before and got stranded at some basic host company.... Well if your information is correct we are all dead soon anyway.

Originally posted by Zoneraver

"I did a trace route on www.abovetopsecret... ... blah blah blah."

Does it start making sense to you? The Above Top Secret website is GOVERNMENT sponsored. By deception...

not that again

It was an April Fool's joke ... someone needs to check their homework hahaha

[edit on 27-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by ATSATTACK
A while ago I posted about an interesting encounter between the signs-of-the-times.org and abovetopsecret.com websites, as reported by Laura Knight-Jadczyk in her blog. Now it appears that a lawyer acting on behalf of ATS tried to get the Signs of the Times server shut down by using strong arm intimidation tactics...

...Why is a site that claims to be the "#1 conspiracy discussion portal on the 'net" getting so upset over a piece of 9-11 analysis done by another website? To the point of getting lawyers to harrass their webhost with stories of "death threats"? Seriously, what is the big deal?...

Ironically, the lawyer involved works for a firm that can be found on the 'net at mofo.com. Appropriate, or what?

If you're interested in reading the whole saga, SOTT have just published a synopsis on the ATS attack on their latest daily news page. It's well worth reading all the posts regarding the subject on LJK's blog, too.

Could one of the three Amigos please give a rundown of their side of the story, if there is any truth in this, just to clear things up a bit.

They have banned ATSAttack and Zoneraver because they dont want you knowing the truth
Google abovetopsecret cointelpro
that is the reason why

I don´t see anyone banned. Why do you say that?????

This isn't a public space for people to come and say what they choose, its a private funded, and owned, forum. If you walked into some ones lounge room and started insulting his wife and kids, you'd either be asked to leave or punched in the mouth.

Come here and contribute in a respectable way, if you cant manage that then don't come and make trouble.

[edit on 27/4/07 by subz]

Your right this isnt a public space.
They ban anyone that doesnt go along with what they say
The Cat Herder story spoke volumes
ATS have banned these people
Do some research
There is a group of people that are going to out ATS
if they have nothing to hide
why do they edit links?
why do they lie about the truth's of 911
the more you look into it the more it stinks
I know a lot of you wont and dont want to believe it
just spend 30 minutes looking in to it
They always use deflection
Do you know why Skeptic Overlord started this thread?
Because now if anyone else starts one on the same subject it can be locked and binned..
Why did they threaten OTT
Why have they got a big game lawyer who also is suprisingly from Virginia?
just have a look folks..
You are being led down the garden path.

Where are you getting "Virginia" from?

If you do the traceroute you get dallas, texas.

and if you do the whois thingy you get Oklahoma...

No Virginia...

Originally posted by Xeros
Could one of the three Amigos please give a rundown of their side of the story, if there is any truth in this, just to clear things up a bit.

There continues to be a great deal of misconceptions regarding the incident with the rebuttal of Catherder's 9/11 Pentagon article by Joe Quinn.

First, let me be clear that we did previously, or do not now, have any serious ill-will toward Mr. Quinn and his SOTT partners. I always thought he provided insightful contributions to the "conspiracy theory community", and it's clear that he still does. Things became somewhat "heated" during the episode, but that has passed and we're all grown-ups.

Mr. Quinn developed a well-regarded rebuttal to this similarly well-regarded posting by CatHerder: 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon. Mr. Quinn's piece, due to the structure of the way he addressed the points in CatHerder's piece, was a derivative work and did not properly credit the source as clearly identified in the copyright notice at the bottom of the post. Additionally, while our Creative Commons deed allows for anyone to use the content with proper attribution, it cannot be user for commercial purposes, and Mr. Quinn's piece appeared to be used to attract traffic to sell books.

As is all too often the case, our enthusiastic support of Catherder's efforts were seen as "supporting the official story" of 9/11, and a great deal of hurtful comments were made about us by people at the SOTT forum. I think there is no secret, among ATS regulars, that our opinion of the "official story" is bunk... but many people cannot fathom our ability to support intelligent analysis of all sides of any given conspiracy as a necessary path to the truth.

Admittedly, our initial contact, because of the comments we saw, was somewhat "over the top" as we sought proper credit and usage of our member's work. However, calmer thoughts quickly prevailed and after a couple exchanges, made it clear we would be happy with:
1) Giving proper credit and link to the source of the material they used
2) Removing the ad for their book from the page (other ads could remain)
If they did that, we would even link to Mr. Quinn's rebuttal and encourage discussion. At no point did we seek to remove Mr. Quinn's well-presented contribution to the analysis of the events at the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, our offer was not received kindly, and our "agnostic" stance that enabled analysis of all sides of any conspiracy was interpreted to mean we were "government shills" of some kind. As a result, all manner of odd material was dredged up and twisted into a negative presentation... including content that was an April fools joke (the government IP nonsense).

Our short-lived relationship with a particular attorney (who was also a site member) didn't help. Once you go down the path of asking a lawyer to resolve an intellectual property dispute, lawyers do what lawyers do and no holds are barred. A stern letter resulted in temporary suspension of SOTT hosting, which is not what we intended.

One important item that has not made it into the incorrect material published about this mess is the tidbit that we have disengaged ourselves from that attorney, and his account on ATS is terminated. Such tactics are not compatible with our long-standing stance of collaboration.


So there you have it. A mess that lingers online in several postings of incorrect information. We generally choose to ignore it and focus more on continuing to operate a highly ethical environment that encourages anyone to post anything as long as it's done with civility and respect.

I'm a 9/11 truther and I have never been censored or pestered in any way regarding my views on 9/11 by any staff member of ATS. I was even given a position as an FSME and I have access to the Staff and Council forum to boot. Never once have I seen any aspect of 9/11 discussion suppressed unless it conflicted with the very basic and reasonable T&C.

9/11 was an inside job!

Oh look, I'm not banned

Originally posted by Truth4hire
My initial response is: It seems strange to react like this on a blog, even if it is questioning or attacking another board. What is even more odd is the use of a lawyer from a very expensive firm. I would not expect this kind of punch available to a forum which uses advertising for funding.

See my summary here

As I mentioned... our "lawyer" was a site member with like-minded interests in UFO's and such. He represented us as a favor, otherwise, there is no way we could have afforded his service.

Ah... I don't agree with ATS being a disinfo source of information. However, I feel that it is the crazy people that happen to go on ATS that want to make us think that it is one. Consider the following. How many of you have ran into a real government agent that worked for the national security on ATS? Do you think the chances are high? I doubt it. In my few years on ATS I think that ATS has been safe and still even still, it's not safe because as my mom tells me that nothing is safe once you post it on the net. I think ATS is safe, but it still has potential to be disinfo, if a employee of the NSA, reads our posts, tracks our IPs, and then they'll think that we're crazy... it's not nonsense talk. It happens a lot to innocent people. I don't want it to happen to me.

if you think ATS is .govbrain, go try the JREF forum. that place is one ugly pile of doubleplusgood groupthink.

"BELIEVE the official story(s), or be SEVERELY RIDICULED"

and, no disrespect to laura and her crew, but channeled material from a ouji board MIGHT be accurate, but i wouldn't bank on it not being disinfo.
i respect the research and dedication of that bunch, though.