WikiLeaks, Proven Fraud in Protecting The OS of 911!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
JA also has all the time in the world to go through thousands upon thousands leaks and at the same time do press interviews and travel around the world

It sounds prepsoterous to me. But hey who am I to call Assange a liar?
Apparently you have no qualms about doing so.

*shrugs*

Hey he is your hero, not mine. I have no problem agreeing with you, he does not actually
read all of those leaks as he claims he does.

He has his little minions do it for him.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Its highly relevant as in the "tea party" Assange has with The Economist,

Assange admits he is censoring the "leaks".

Assange goes into detail with his evaluation of his censorship of the leaks!

edit on 5-2-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Of course they have to censor some stuff to protect lives. Let's say there's a cable talking about specific infiltration of a terrorist group, and the 2 operatives names are in the cables...don't you think it makes perfect sense to censor those names? The story can still be highly relevant, but the names only endanger lives.

Why do you think WL has such a perfect track record when it comes to making sure no one gets hurt through those leaks?

reply to post by burntheships

Thank you burntheships, good research. Apparently Julian Assange is in this for the money, and the mainstream media glorified this man as some kind of hero to gain the world population trust, and to fool everyone that Julian Assange is the poor victim of political attacks for leaking world government corruption. (Or was the media suckered as well) The fact is I haven’t seen any government officials arrested or jailed from any of the leaks. Well their plan worked and from seeing some of the responses in this thread, there are a few that are hurt and cannot handle this kind of Truth. One only needs to read their ignorant comments and the ridiculous questions a few have asked when the answers are right in front of them.

Julian Assange has made the claim that he believes there is no conspiracy into 911.
For a man who makes a living exposing corruption which are conspiracy, I find it really interesting that he doesn’t see the lack of information from all the events that happened and how silent our government is about 911. This alone and what was recently leaked proves to me this man is working with people in our government in order to prop up the OS.
I see a global trend happening here and world media merging, global corporations running world governments, so why not the media as well. Wouldn’t it be nice to have one man and a website that the entire world can go for inside information, a website sensationalized by the world media, to make everyone believe the information is all true?

What a great way to slip in disinformation about political events and help cover-up government crimes. Julian Assange sits on top of the world as the most powerful man holding the dirt on all governments, what price will politician pay Julian Assange to keep their names off his website?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by atlasastro

 

If anyone is spinning the facts you just did.

Your entire OP is a spin, you use a source unrelated to Wiki in anyshape or form that you have misunderstood, and a quote from Assange in order to perpetuate the accusation that Wiki is fabricating material to support the OS of 9/11.

The material has been provided to everyone who reads it in this thread, and it is very credible .

I have read the material. None of it relates to your accustaion, and none of it is evidence that supports your accustaion.
Again, please provide a link to a WIKILEAKS release that is supportive of the OS of 9/11.
Here is the link to Wiki in order for you to show us here on ATS that Wiki releases material that supports the OS of 9/11.
wikileaks.ch...
There is a link to the entire Archive on that page, you can download it and show us the material you accuse Wiki of faking to support the OS 9/11.

Again, please provide evidence that proves these leaks, that you claim are from Wiki, are faked in order to support the OS of 9/11.

You, like the few debunkers in here have completely ignored the given facts that are very credible and are now spining the topic.

I am spining nothing.
I will remind you of your claim in the OP.
These are your words. No spin needed.

WikiLeaks, Proven Fraud in Protecting The OS of 911!

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

post by impressme


The reality is though, is that you have confused an Article WRITTEN by Sibel relating to the "FBI informants" memorandum releases, with STATEMENTS made by SIbel.
You fail.
Sibel is REPORTING, she is the REPORTER, she has written the REPORT you link.
The MATERIAL, she is REPORTING in the REPORT that she REPORTED differs from HER personal statements relating to 9/11.
When you comprehend that, you may start to see some convergence between reality and your ability to percieve it.
Let me break it down for you.

I am not surprised at the stupidity of WikiLeaks to think the American people have short term memories, of who is Sibel Edmonds, and what profound role she played in outing the governments’ lies of their boogieman OBL as being the Mastermind to 911. Yet in an interview on the Mike Malloy Show back in 7/31/2009, Sibel Edmonds blew the whistle, that Bin Laden was working for the United States all the way up to 911.

post by impressme

We all know who Sibel is now. Right.
Now lets look at the Source from the ATS thread you linked.
he FBI "Kamikaze Pilots" Case; Omitted From 911 Commission Report- Article by Sibel Edmonds

www.opednews.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The FBI "Kamikaze Pilots" Case; Omitted From 911 Commission Report
By Sibel Edmonds (about the author)[

The article is BY Sibel.
Yet you seem to think the material in the article REPORTED by SIBEL is somehow faked and that this report is linked to WIKI.

The FBI "Kamikaze Pilots" Case; Omitted From 911 Commission Report- Article by Sibel Edmonds

Is not the work or admissions from Sibel Edmonds, the facts speak for themselves.

And you are right in the above statement, the article BY SIbel is not related to the ADMISSIONS of SIBEL but they are related to this:

In a public statement issued on Monday, January 31, members of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee demanded a prompt response from the former Chairman and the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission regarding Former FBI Language Specialist Behrooz Sarshar's censored testimony to the Commission. The former commissioners failed to respond to this request.

SIBEL IS REPORTING ON THIS MATERIAL.
It has nothing to do with SIBELS PERSONAL ADMISSIONS.

NOW.

If you can please provide evidence as to how this article REPORTED by SIBEL who is REPORTING on THIS:

Other than that, the information below is exactly what was recounted by Mr. Sarshar on four occasions:

www.opednews.com... is somehow faked by wiki I would appreciate it.

So, in summary.
Please provide the links to WIKI that relate to the WIKI releases that support the OS of 9/11.
Please provie the evidence that they are fake.

Please show that this article By SIBEL, is faked by WIKI.
www.opednews.com...

Please explain why you think Sibel reporting on the statements of Mr. Sarshar in this articleare some how evidence that Sibels admissions and personal statements have been attacked by Wiki in order to support the OS of 9/11.

If you want to "play ignorant" then I hope you don’t mind if I don't respond.

You did respond, with nothing but more accusations and opinion.
To infer that I am a debunker is as absurd as the weak correlations and innuendo you have constructed in your OP. There is nothing to debunk.
Again, please provide the evidence to support your statements.
Please enlighten me if you do believe I am playing ignorant!

WikiLeaks, Proven Fraud in Protecting The OS of 911!

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

post by impressme

reply to post by burntheships


If you look at the article in the OP by Sibel Edmonds , you will see that Sibel herself edits and censors material in the exact same fashion and with the same ethics as other journalistic sources.
www.opednews.com...

I have only deleted sensitive personal information related to the FBI informant-Asset, and as you'll see every single deleted item (by me-indicated as S.E.) has been indicated in bold-italics.

Wiki and Assange are no different.

I suggest you try and grasp the basic priciples and ethics relating to the International laws that offer Wiki, Assange, the journalists and the sources for al media outlets protection before you start hurling half baked accusations and assertions that only offer an insight into you own profound ignorance rather then shed any light on Assange or Wiki.
Thank you.

Originally posted by atlasastro

I suggest you try and grasp the basic priciples and ethics relating to the International laws that offer Wiki, Assange, the journalists and the sources for al media outlets protection

Please, spare me your ignorance on the matter. Surely you would not consider Assange to possess
good ethics.

In my view, Assange violates everything I know to be journalistically ethical.

His Wikleaks endeavor ranks lower than a Panamanian Psyop newspaper put out under the Noriega regime.

He is an epic FAIL.

SPJ Code of ethics....

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

www.spj.org...

reply to post by atlasastro

If anyone is spinning the facts you just did.
Your entire OP is a spin, you use a source unrelated to Wiki in anyshape or form that you have misunderstood, and a quote from Assange in order to perpetuate the accusation that Wiki is fabricating material to support the OS of 9/11.

Yet, in your useless drivel towards me, you have failed to establish any evidence to prove my information is false. Appealing to me and this topic on emotional level tells me you can’t handle the given facts, and any evidence given will surly be ignored by you, as you have demonstrated this repeatedly. Your hero is not what you want to believe.

You have taken the OP and have twisted it into total nonsense. Having this discussion with you is no different than me talking to a role of toilet paper.

reply to post by impressme


No, the OP is blaming WL and Assange for stuff the New York Times or Economist did. And hell, in some case censorship is warranted as has been mentioned before.

Nothing you or the OP posted serves as evidence to back up your claims

reply to post by impressme


You, Sir British, are, is, what, the, a complete fool.

Bring it on.

reply to post by impressme


Please reply with a link to any wiki releases that support the OS of 9/11.
Please supply evidence that these are false.
Please show how Wiki is responsible for Sibels article relating to material you link, and provide evidence that Wiki has fraudulently created this to support the OS. of 9/11.

Pretty simply really.

reply to post by impressme

Julian Assange has made the claim that he believes there is no conspiracy into 911.

Care to PROVE that statement??

BTW, you still haven't answered my original, simple question...

reply to post by burntheships


Please supply material that Wiki has released that fails to comply with the SPJ code.
Please, do not link opinionated blogs or third party sources.
Link the releases from Wiki themselves that fail to comply.
Thank You.
Here are all the topic of releases that you can relate the SPJ to and provide members here with examples where wiki fail to comply.

War, killings, torture and detention
Government, trade and corporate transparency
Suppression of free speech and a free press
Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence
Ecology, climate, nature and sciences
Corruption, finance, taxes, trading
Censorship technology and internet filtering
Cults and other religious organizations
Abuse, violence, violation

wikileaks.ch...

I look forward to you providing ATS members with solid evidence that supports your accusation.
I hope you are better at it than the OP, who so far has failed miserably at providing any real or solid evidence.


I would also, at this time like to point out the basic flaw in some of your "rational" if I can even call it that.
You point out in relation to the NYT printing material:

Perfect example of how Wikileaks lured so many to follow the pied piper.

Assange claims the paper didn't publish the material in its entirety and made too many concessions to the White House before going to print.

freeinternetpress.com...

Yes, Assange complained that the paper didn't publish the material.
But that is irrelevant because WIKI leaks published it too. Assange is complianing that MSM sources have not acted properly in relation to the WIKI leaks information.
The NYT merely uses material from Wiki, Assange complains that that material was not published in its entiriety and concessions were made towards the Whitehouse, YET WIKILEAKS still published the material in its entirety.

The fact that you cannot make a simple distiction between organisations and the way they behave is rather unfortunate seeing as you have based you opinion on this inability to make such a distinction. Rather then comprehending the material, you have constructed a conspiracy from little more than Assange relating his dissapointment at the behaviour of a major MSM source chosen to partner a joint release of information. This does not negate the fact that WIKILEAKS still released the material left out by the NYT, on its own.
wikileaks.ch...

The fact that you selectively edited the source you used in this post [url= here, to support and manipulate your own poor attempt at accusing Assange of the very same should highlight to other ATS members your own lack of integrity and honesty in relation to the topic.
The article you link clearly states that Assange is refering to a JOINT release of information.

The joint publication of classified United States embassy cables in November 2010 in a number of major newspapers and magazines rocked the diplomatic world. In newly published books, editors at SPIEGEL and the New York Times have documented relationships between the founder of WikiLeaks and the publications that were at time tumultuous during preparations for the documents' release.

Wiki itself released the diplomatic cables as well as the joint release with MSM sources.
wikileaks.ch...
The NYT and Speigel had a joint release and this was negotiated with the NYT, Speigel and Wiki.
Wiki has no say over the editorial process of either of those publications, and vice versa.

The fact that you have selectively used material in order to present a fallacy is rather telling, not to mention a perfect example of hypocracy as you accuse Wiki of doing the very same.

The only fail is see here, are You and the OP.
Thank you for replying to my post and confirming the fact that your intention is to mis-inform, distort, omit and edit material in order to manipulate the truth whilst accusing others of the very same.
Keep up the good work. Not.

reply to post by atlasastro


Wikileaks is just a name, a tax exempt "organizaiton".

So Wikileaks is neither unethical, or ethical.

Only its so called "journalists" are called into question,
and those named are Assange...and according to other Wiki symathizers here on this thread ...
also his minions.

reply to post by burntheships


Don't move the goal posts.
Please supply links to wiki releases that fail to comply with the criteria you have applied by showing us the SPJ code of ethics.

It is that simple.
Put up or shut up.

Both yourself and the OP have failed when asked to support your accusations.
Your own posts are examples of all the things you claim Wiki perpetuate.
You omit information, you have edited material yourself, you have twisted and manipulated information in order to support your own agenda.

I simply ask that you prove yourself with facts.
It seems you cannot.

Your posts show that emphatically.
I will take leave of this debate as it seems both you, and the OP, are incapable of honest debate or able to provide material to support you accusations. Both you and the OP have used material to distort the truth by linking articles not presented by, published by or related to Wikileaks releases. You have both then used these in fabricating lies, innuendo and baseless accusations.

I have asked You, and the OP numerous times to simply link Wikileaks material that supports your accusations.
Both of you have failed.
In fact,this failure is Epic.

I'll let these simple facts relating to the behaviour of the OP and yourself, to speak for themselves. Everyone can see the accusations, the material you both use and now your profound inability to prove yourselves with simple facts.



Thank you for your replies.

reply to post by burntheships


Assange has ties to Australian Intelligence: MSNBC

Assange has denied the charges, which a lower official had withdrawn two weeks ago, and said he has been warned by Australian intelligence that he could face a campaign to discredit him after leaking the documents.

He was not really punished when caught hacking by Australian authorities (maybe turned to work for gov't?): CSmonitor.

Wikilinks donations come through a Moneybookers, subsidiary of Investcorp which is a BCCI corporation. link

Moneybookers, which is registered in the UK but controlled by the Bahrain-based group Investcorp

You remember BCCI right? Iran contra... CIA, Bushes, Saudi Arabia... Time Magazine

Investigators probing B.C.C.I. have told TIME that the Iran-contra affair is linked to the burgeoning bank scandal. Former government officials and other sources confirm that the CIA stashed money in a number of B.C.C.I. accounts that were used to finance covert operations; some of these funds went to the contras. Investigators also say an intelligence unit of the U.S. defense establishment has used the bank to maintain a secret slush fund, possibly for financing unauthorized covert operations. More startling yet, even before North set up his network for making illegal payments to the contras, the National Security Council was using B.C.C.I. to channel money to them. The funds were first sent to Saudi Arabia to disguise their White House origins; then they were deposited into a B.C.C.I. account maintained by contra leader Adolfo Calero.
The Iran-contra affair has been characterized by U.S. officials as a rogue operation managed by overzealous members of the National Security Council. But if Fiers is correct, top-ranking CIA officials not only knew about the operation and did nothing to stop it; they also participated in an illegal cover-up.
One of the first casualties of the disclosures could be the nomination of Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gates to head the CIA.

Bush, Clinton, Cia, Drugs, BCCI... remember? link

If you look where assanges money comes from there are numerous tie ins to George Soros. Just search for "assange, soros"

Wikileaks is hosted by Pirate Bay Co-founded by Carl Lundström who made his forturne by selling his family company Wasabröd to Sandoz who made the drugs that were given to the cult which helped raise Assange:
link1
link2
Also see New Yorker link above.
Unseen Unheard Unknown, book google books

The cult Assange was raised in was funneling children by the thousands all over the world in child trafficking; and the experiments and techniques used are the same time and same type as the ones used in MK-ULTRA. It was part of the Eugenics movement and specialized in blond haired blue eyed children.

So is he funded by Soros, working for the CIA and possibly a sleeper MK victim??? It's highly speculative but possible.

He says he was never mind controlled, but the children of the cult are tortured, given '___' and made to believe nne Hamilton-Byrne is their mother and the real mothers are "aunties." Assange says he doesn't remember much about the cult, but that would indicate trauma/abuse memories which would show he probably does have some level of programming. Though probably not that of a full MK victim as it started later in life.

Soros does not oversee each of his many thousands of funds, so it's possible Assange is getting these without Sorors' direct intervention/knowledge.

Just because you bank with someone and someone else does too does not make you connected.

I could go on... but no one of these are damning... altogether they are highly suspicious and possibly indicative of conspiracy.

reply to post by pianopraze

Bush, Clinton, Cia, Drugs, BCCI... remember? link

Thank you Pianopraze, great research, and more to the point it certainly supports why Julian Assange would protect his friends, and business associates, it doesn’t amaze me that Julian Assange has such close ties in the echelons of our corrupt government. I was not aware of some of the information you found concerning Assange money, and BCCI, I will say I am not surprised.
This explains to me why Assange cannot see any conspiracy into 911.

wikileaks support OS
www.abovetopsecret.com...

wikileaks support OS
www.examiner.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

wikileaks dont support OS
www.abovetopsecret.com...

hmm, where do they stand

I gotta agree with Assange on this. We don't need wikileaks to tell us that high level government officials ignored warnings from intel that 9/11 was coming, that is common knowledge dismissed by the public as ineptitude. I believe they let it happen to gain support for their aggressive foreign/oil policy, but did not actually carry it out. TPTB love the wild @ssed theories that enable them to lump anybody who believes they allowed it to happen in with those who say the planes were holograms, etc. and discredit anybody who does not buy the official story. 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but they left the door wide open...

Originally posted by 27jd
9/11 wasn't an inside job, but they left the door wide open...

You havent done much research?
they left the door open for who?

the family members still want to know the truth:
buildingwhat.org...