It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WikiLeaks, Proven Fraud in Protecting The OS of 911!

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Those cable were "confidential" and "secret". NOT top secret. I would think anything to do
with 9/11 is is not going to be in any cable labeled SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL. So I doubt
Julian Assange would know one way or another.

In the beginning I was a HUGE WikiLeaks supporter. But more and more I'm starting to believe
he's just another CIA shill. He's got something up his sleeve and it doesn't have a DAMN THING
to do with freedom or freedom of information. This whole thing is starting to stink to high heaven.




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by backinblack
 



Ryland: A Sibel Edmonds 'Bombshell' - Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Until 9/11

www.bradblog.com...

I stand by the given facts


CIA Vet: FBI Whistleblower Edmonds 'Very Credible'

Longtime counterterrorism agent Phil Giraldi comments on FBI vet John Cole's recent confirmation of Bush official targeted in 'decade-long' espionage probe

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, the author of American Conservative magazine's explosive cover story interview with FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds finds her to be "very credible," even though "as a former intelligence officer," he says, he's "normally suspicious of these kinds of stories."

www.bradblog.com...

I can say that WikiLeaks has gone out of their way to discredit Sibel Edmonds and her statements proven Bin Laden and his group had nothing to do with 911.




So basically, you refuse to answer my question??
I'll repeat it incase you missed it..

Did you prove the 'documents" wikileaks revealed were a fraud or the information in them??

HUGE difference......


Now, a simple answer please...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Both of those blogs whether they are true or untrue are just somebodies words, they are not hard evidence - and in neither of them was wikileaks mentioned (at all) let alone in relation to them trying to discredit her.

I refer to my previous replies, if either of these people had concrete proof of their claims (which may or may not be true) and provided that information to wikileaks, wikileaks would release it. The statement by Julian Assange that you are trying to paint as him discrediting those two is completely out of context - and is the only reasonable position someone in Julian Assanges position can take - UNTIL they get direct, concrete, PROOF (actual documents, recordings or video of planning meetings etc).

This lady you are referencing did not provide documents, recordings or video or any other kind of evidence - regardless of how reliable she is or isn't.

So with this in mind, if you were Julian Assange whose trying to maintain credibility, would it help or hinder your operation to make a wild claim with nothing but someones unprovable statement?

Huh? You and people like you are just helping the system by acting the way you are.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by orbitbaby
 


No, you're just buying into disinformation.

The government and medias response to all this is what stinks, that is what you should be rebelling against, instead of casting aside someone who is on our side.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack



So basically, you refuse to answer my question??
I'll repeat it incase you missed it..
Did you prove the 'documents" wikileaks revealed were a fraud or the information in them??

HUGE difference......

Now, a simple answer please...


I gave you the answers to your question twice, but you continue to ignore the sources that back my claims, in fact you have said absolutely nothing about the sources I gave you that support my claim.
Now you can choose to continue to play your silly games and ignore everything that has been provided to you however, do not expect me to continue to respond to you when the answers to your questions are in front of your nose.

Troll much?
edit on 5-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by PeacefulGuerilla
 



So with this in mind, if you were Julian Assange whose trying to maintain credibility, would it help or hinder your operation to make a wild claim with nothing but someones unprovable statement?


The fact is your hero is a liar, and I proved it, now you can spin the facts anyway you like however, You have not discredit any of my information but to only give you “opinions” to why you believe Julian Assange is the saint that you want everyone to believe him to be.
As far as your fallacies against Sibal Edmonds that you say are not provable, credible people in the FBI have backed her allegations and have come out publicly to support her claims. If you want to believe in Julian Assange is some kind of G-d, knock yourself out.
However, don’t expect the rest of the thinking world to follow your ideologies.


Huh? You and people like you are just helping the system by acting the way you are.


No, it’s the ignorance from people who enjoy posting nonsense as we just seen demonstrated, by a few debunkers in this thread.
Since you feel strongly about expressing your “disbelief” in your belief system, I hope you don’t mind me expressing mine.
edit on 5-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
If Julian Assange doesn't believe that there was a conspiracy with 9/11 then that in itself is the smoking gun and Julian Assange is a disinformation agent. Anyone who really wants to know what happened with 9/11 can click on the big word 'Truth' below - then watch the movie linked in the OP.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Just because credible people have backed her does not mean anything in this context. The main-stream media that Julian Assange is trying to work to his advantage has not made a big deal of this woman, or the 9/11 truth movement. So Julian Assange attaching himself to said movement at this stage with no physical evidence to verify that claim would be career suicide and would prevent him from maximising impact with future releases.

Julian Assange isn't a messiah, but hes doing something a hell of a lot more productive than you are with your ridiculous and muddled nonsense.

Again, you must be mentally not-quite-all-there or a paid dis-info blogger to continue with your line of reasoning.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I was thinking that wiki leaks might be a gov. job. If according to some people the TPTB control as much they do, then if they didn't want you to see what was in all of this information it wouldn't be splashed all over the main stream news networks. Wiki Leaks almost seems like something to desensitize the public of the truths that are going on.
edit on 5-2-2011 by BriGuyTM90 because: forgot word



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Can you post just one release from wiki leaks that is fraudulent and designed to support the OS 9/11
I have seen you state that Wiki is supporting the OS like this.
Simply point out a release from wiki that supports the OS and that this material is fraudulent.

Wiki has nothing to do with Sibel, in fact Assange points out, in a quote that you provide, that material like Sibel's is not conspiratorial it is NEWS, in that it has enough supporting material behind it.

“Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two.Generally, when there’s enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.



” What about 9/11? [color=gold] “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

What Assange states, again in the quote you provide, is that there is s difference between NEWS amd CRAZED conspiracies. Be honest, 9/11 has some crazy conspracy theories behind it. No planes, mini nuclear weapons, Direct energy weapons etc etc. Assange may be generalizing about 9/11.
I have seen hundreds if not thousands of people annoyed and miffed at the conspiracies surounding 9/11 here on ATS. Does that means they support the OS? Does that mean their posts are dilberately fraudulent in order to support the OS?
I don't think it is wise to leap to conclusions like that, yet you do? Why?
Assange seems merely annoyed by the fact that he has repeatedly given the world hard, undeniable evidence relating to conspiracies yet other conspiracies that may not be supported by such seem to exist.



New evidence has surfaced proven WikiLeaks, a fraud in concocting reports to prop up the OS of 911.

Please provide material that supports you accusation.
Provide leaked material from Wiki that specifically supports the OS.
Provide evidence that this material is fake or fraudulent.
Thank you.
edit on 5/2/11 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by PeacefulGuerilla
 



The main-stream media that Julian Assange is trying to work to his advantage has not made a big deal of this woman, or the 9/11 truth movement.


That is completely untrue. The fact is when she came out and blew the whistle, It was front page News all over the world, or are you going to deny this to?


So Julian Assange attaching himself to said movement at this stage with no physical evidence to verify that claim would be career suicide and would prevent him from maximising impact with future releases.


Yeah goes, to prove when you practice to deceive…


Julian Assange isn't a messiah, but hes doing something a hell of a lot more productive than you are with your ridiculous and muddled nonsense.


You haven’t proved anything against my alligations.


Again, you must be mentally not-quite-all-there or a paid dis-info blogger to continue with your line of reasoning.


My line of reasoning? The facts speak for themselves and as to what you believe I am on ATS, I am none of the above and as for my mental state you are not qualified to evaluated me. You my friend are a prime example of my signature.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


If anyone is spinning the facts you just did.
The material has been provided to everyone who reads it in this thread, and it is very credible . You, like the few debunkers in here have completely ignored the given facts that are very credible and are now spining the topic. If you want to "play ignorant" then I hope you don’t mind if I don't respond.
edit on 5-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by backinblack



So basically, you refuse to answer my question??
I'll repeat it incase you missed it..
Did you prove the 'documents" wikileaks revealed were a fraud or the information in them??

HUGE difference......

Now, a simple answer please...


I gave you the answers to your question twice, but you continue to ignore the sources that back my claims, in fact you have said absolutely nothing about the sources I gave you that support my claim.
Now you can choose to continue to play your silly games and ignore everything that has been provided to you however, do not expect me to continue to respond to you when the answers to your questions are in front of your nose.

Troll much?[


You answered nothing I asked..
'
Me the troll??



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by PeacefulGuerilla
 


Oh yeah? And how do you know your not the one buying into the disinfo?
What a perfect scam. Out of hundreds of thousands of cables, they can
change just a few...just the ones that support their agenda...and not touch the
rest of the cables. That would make it look like all of the cables are true.

Meantime the rest of the world and the media await with bated breath the
for the release of these cables taking everything that Wikileaks says as
gospel.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the whole WikiLeaks procedure.

They are given privileged access to documents, they did not write these documents, all they do is make these documents available on the internet.
People and journalists can proceed to take this documentation, research, study, and investigate in order to follow up on any information provided by them.

So, if the WikiLeaks organization is given material that is full of falsehoods or deliberate misinformation (which is highly possible), it is for others to verify. They never claimed that what they make available on their website is somehow "absolute truth"... they simply make the documentation available, nothing more, nothing less.

the Billmeister

p.s.
As an independent, neutral 3rd party, it does not appear that you did answer BackInBlack's inquiry. If you did and we all missed it, why not simply repeat it in a clear, concise manner?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
First of all JA made this comment along time ago. You use this comment alongside the Sibel stuff which is very recent. If there is a shred of thruth in it JA didn't know that because he is not psychic. As far as this 'new' information it's just hearsay. Nothing even remotely credible but from your tone it sounds like a smoking gun. JA is absolutely correct. 911 is a false conspiracy untill there is at least some credible evidence to suggest otherwise.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


What you have provided as "credible" source are anything but. When you come on here yelling from the rooftops about fraud then in the same breath turn around and use bradblog.com, menwithtinfoilhats.com, and opednews.com as your sources you have provided nothing but opinion with little to no fact backing it. Go find some real sources then come back and make your claims and validate them with real "sources".


There is nothing here to debate. If you want I can quick go create a blog claiming aliens are real, and that I had dinner with Elvis last night and have pictures to back it all up. Since it's on a "credible" website it has to be true.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
You have a funny definition of "proof"



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
can't say I didn't warn ya.
see the link in my sig



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
can't say I didn't warn ya.
see the link in my sig


Yeah, I suggest anyone who likes hilarious fiction to check out that thread. Maybe if people start reading it again you will finally present anything resembling actual facts and proof rather than baseless accusations


I'm always surprised at what people consider proof/evidence, this thread is one of those surprises...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join