"Topic merged: DISINFO CORNER: NO PLANES / VIDEO FAKERY / SPACE LASERS"

"date   Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:48 AM"

"A topic you are watching has been merged with another topic by Sane."


I'm out of here!

The web site seems to be down, but I can see there are torrents available on the web.

I'm assuming that you're asking me why does this post not deserve to be part of the "Faux Controversies and Case Studies" 9/11 sub-forum...

I don't know how is it different from other similar(?) posts, because I've never read or watched this kind of explanation before anywhere. (Concerning 9/11, that is. I remember Alex once interviewing a doctor, concerning the Oklahoma City bombing, where the latter said that mini-nukes were also used in this attack. That was the only time I heard or read anything somewhat similar.)

I don't have time to be here making a resume of the presentation and make my own drawings. If you all want to know what the arguments are, just watch the presentation. (I realize that it is quite a long interview, so for those of you who don't have much time, I have left in the post a reference to where the core arguments are made.)

Also, above all, I don't have to justify why should I not be censored (or have my post removed from it's proper/initial place). You, the moderators who moved it, are the ones who have to justify why you did it or, otherwise, let me freely make posts in here in their proper place.

Now I see that Sane has moved my topic from the "Off Topic / Faux Controversies / Whining Threads / UFO's" sub-forum to the "9/11/2001 Attacks Were An Inside Job > Faux Controversies and Case Studies" one.
Would you please, Sane, also explain to me why does this post not deserve to be part of the open(?) discussion concerning the possible explanations for the WTC collapse, and worthy of the label "faux controversy" or "disinformation"? What arguments presented by the author in question, concerning the collapse of the WTC, do you consider to be blatantly false to the point of you considering them obvious disinformation?

attietewd:

I've just tested the links and they are working. Try again.


EvadingGrid:

I can see from an e-mail warning I've received that you were the one who moved the post to the "Faux Controversies" sub-forum, so I deduce you were also the one who renamed it.
Would you care to explain to me what did you find in the presentation I call people's attention for that lead you to the conclusion that this is disinformation?

Daniel Estulin has resurrected his blog and, among other things, has started posting some parts of a video containing an interview made to a former "nuclear intelligence officer" of the Soviet military where the latter explains how the WTC towers were demolished through the use of nuclear devices.

This is an absolute must-see!

http://www.3truth911.com/911_WTC_nuclear_demolition_Dimitri_Khalezov_part01.mp4

(Just keep changing the numbers in the url field from "part01" to "part02", etc, until "part26".)


The interview seems to be incomplete, since that at the end of "part26", the interviewer talks about further statements about to be made by the interviewed, but I can't find any more parts of this video.

Estulin has only published "part07" and 08 in his blog so far, and has posted in his Facebook page a week ago a warning that the Thai and American governments were on the brink of shutting down the server were some "videos about secrets of September 11" he was downloading were being hosted, so I don't know if the missing part(?) is one of those videos or not. We'll wait and see.

In the meantime, for those of you in a hurry, the core of the "nuclear demolition" explanation is from "part07" to "part16".


Like the former officer claims in "part22", his statements about no planes being used to attack the WTC, are just his personal opinion, and not a fact that he knows for sure, like the case of the "nuclear demolition" of the WTC.

Personally, I'm still not sure what to think about the planes, and the author (a former dedicated government officer, who surely would have a hard time believing that a government would be capable of killing it's own citizens) doesn't explain how and why would then the US government, in such a short notice, be able to fabricate the images that were presented to the whole world, a few minutes after the attacks... But all I will say about the "nuclear demolition" explanation is that everything adds up!

Watch the video and make your own judgment.

Also, perhaps a good idea is to save it, since the associated web site that is referenced at the end of each part (the functioning one is the one that ends with ".cn") also talks about the possibility of this type of videos being pulled off the Internet at any time.

Daniel Estulin has resurrected his blog and, among other things, has started posting some parts of a video containing an interview made to a former "nuclear intelligence officer" of the Soviet military where the latter explains how the WTC towers were demolished through the use of nuclear devices.

This is an absolute must-see!

http://www.3truth911.com/911_WTC_nuclear_demolition_Dimitri_Khalezov_part01.mp4

(Just keep changing the numbers in the url field from "part01" to "part02", etc, until "part26".)


The interview seems to be incomplete, since that at the end of "part26", the interviewer talks about further statements about to be made by the interviewed, but I can't find any more parts of this video.

Estulin has only published "part07" and 08 in his blog so far, and has posted in his Facebook page a week ago a warning that the Thai and American governments were on the brink of shutting down the server were some "videos about secrets of September 11" he was downloading were being hosted, so I don't know if the missing part(?) is one of those videos or not. We'll wait and see.

In the meantime, for those of you in a hurry, the core of the "nuclear demolition" explanation is from "part07" to "part16".


Like the former officer claims in "part22", his statements about no planes being used to attack the WTC, are just his personal opinion, and not a fact that he knows for sure, like the case of the "nuclear demolition" of the WTC.

Personally, I'm still not sure what to think about the planes, and the author (a former dedicated government officer, who surely would have a hard time believing that a government would be capable of killing it's own citizens) doesn't explain how and why would then the US government, in such a short notice, be able to fabricate the images that were presented to the whole world, a few minutes after the attacks... But all I will say about the "nuclear demolition" explanation is that everything adds up!

Watch the video and make your own judgment.

Also, perhaps a good idea is to save it, since the associated web site that is referenced at the end of each part (the functioning one is the one that ends with ".cn") also talks about the possibility of this type of videos being pulled off the Internet at any time.

Correction: Estulin is also making a few posts in English. Find them with the tag: http://www.danielestulin.com/categorias/original-en-ingles/

Estulin is also making a few posts in English on his blog. Find them with the tag: http://www.danielestulin.com/categorias/original-en-ingles/

The term "black" comes from their deeds, the kind of evil methods they use. (Like in the case of the term "black ops").
Dr. Coleman's monograph about them - http://www.coleman300.com/WhitePaper/ - is a good source for more information, while Estulin doesn't publish some work that describes them in more depth.

Twitter account:

http://twitter.com/danielestulines


And some "blogspot" posts he made in the last two months:

http://daniel-estulin.blogspot.com/

(He's now posting only in his own initial blog/site.)

Twitter account:

http://twitter.com/danielestulines


And some "blogspot" posts he made in the last two months:

http://daniel-estulin.blogspot.com/

(He's now posting only in his own initial blog/site.)


The man is definitely back. And, apparently, not as pessimistic as he was.

Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Daniel-Estulin/107222202629960

Daniel Estulin's Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Daniel-Estulin/107222202629960

Back to writing things on his blog:

www.danielestulin.com

(Only in Castilian, for the moment...)


And now with a YouTube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DanielEstulinVideos

(Most videos are in English.)


And yes, if it is indeed held there, Estulin is going to Barcelona - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02uteTHSCAI. So "stay tunned"...

Daniel Estulin's YouTube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DanielEstulinVideos

(Most of the videos are in English.)

Daniel Estulin is writing again things on his blog.
For those of you who can read Castilian:

www.danielestulin.com

(It will surely be also a good source of information about the next Bilderberg conference in Barcelona.)

Thanks donnay and ImmortalTRUTH. I already know about the meeting between Senator Graham, Congressman Goss and the "money man" behind 9/11. What I was curious to know more about was the details of how they were apparently warned about the attacks when they were meeting. I remember Alex mentioning once that it was published in a "Washington Times" article that they reacted unsurprised to the fact and responded in a condescend manner to the person who warned them (or were even amused(?) by the person's reaction). That's what I wanted to clear out. Thanks again for your links anyway.

Relating to this... does anyone here have the link to a news I heard Alex mentioning once on air, some years ago, about how, on the day of 9/11, when the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees where having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani ISI, someone went to warn them about the attacks and one of them responded in a sarcastic manner "We know..."?
I remember Alex saying that the news appeared in the "Washington Times", but I searched for it at the time and didn't found it.

Now there's something that never occurred to me...
To not only release a biological weapon to get rid of the "surplus" population, but also blame it's release on some political extremist group.
It would be like killing 3 birds with one stone, fulfilling 3 main goals of the NWO: depopulation, accomplishment of a definitive police state, and a brutal crackdown on every political opposition.
It reminds me of a line in a movie I saw called "The Siege": http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=79424.msg594900#msg594900

Start using GNU/Linux, and a few years from now - if you feel confident enough - check out projects like "Incognito" and "Freenet" and give them a try.

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100419_false_flags.htm


When False Flags Don't Fly


James Corbett
The Corbett Report

19 April, 2010


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJgv39GtcJ0


Those who have studied history know that nothing invigorates and empowers an authoritarian regime more than a spectacular act of violence, some sudden and senseless loss of life that allows the autocrat to stand on the smoking rubble and identify himself as the hero. It is at moments like this that the public—still in shock from the horror of the tragedy that has just unfolded before them—can be led into the most ruthless despotism: despotism that now bears the mantle of "security."

Acts of terror and violence never benefit the average man or woman. They only ever benefit those in positions of power.

This is why Nero fiddled while Rome burned: it gave him a chance to throw the Christians to the lions and rebuild the capital of the Roman Empire in his own image.

This is why Hearst and the warmongers of the emerging American Empire were delighted by the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor: it gave them the excuse they needed in order to rouse the public into supporting the Spanish-American War.

This is why Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 during the Six Day War, strafing and torpedoing it relentlessly for hours in a vain attempt to send it to the bottom: the Israelis believed that the loss of the Liberty could be blamed on Egypt and draw the Americans into war.

This is why there are hundreds of documented examples of governments staging attacks in order to blame them on their political enemies. In every civilization, in every culture, in every historical period, authoritarians have known that spectacular acts of violence help to further consolidate their own power and control. And sadly, throughout history there have been all too many willing to allow attacks to occur, to pretend that attacks have occurred or even to attack their own population in order to further their political agenda.

To think that such staged provocations and false flag attacks no longer occur would be as unrealistic as believing that human nature itself has changed, that powerful people no longer seek to increase their power, that influence is never used for deceit or manipulation, that lies are no longer told to satisfy greed or slake the thirst for control. It is to believe that our society is immuned from those things that we have seen in every other society in every other era. In short, it is a dangerous delusion.

The people are once again learning the power of this delusion. They are learning the extent to which they have been lied to. They are once again studying their history.

The Russians are learning how the FSB was caught planting bombs in Moscow in the 1990s during a terror scare that swept Putin into power and stirred the public into supporting the Second Chechen War. They are learning how their autocratic ex-President came to power campaigning on the graves of those his old FSB cronies had killed.

The Israelis are learning how Mossad has been caught time and again posing as the very Muslim terrorists they claim to be opposing. They are learning how Israel uses the specter of terror to further extend their blank cheque drawn on American funds to expand their police state at home and maintain their hardline stance, the world's sixth-largest nuclear superpower supposedly threatened by the possibility that one of their neighbours may one day obtain a single nuclear weapon.

The British are learning how their SAS officers were caught dressing up as Arabs in Iraq, driving around with trucks full of munitions, shooting at police to stir up ethnic tensions and insure that permanent bases could be built in the region. They are learning how Haroon Aswat, the supposed mastermind behind the 7/7 bombings, was working for British Intelligence. They are learning how British military intelligence took part in IRA bombings.

The Indians are learning how the Mumbai attack was helped by an U.S. Agent who is cooperating with investigators so that he won't face questioning by foreign authorities.

The Canadians are learning how their own provincial police dressed up as protestors in 2007 and threatened violence against other police in order to force a crackdown on peaceful protests.

And the Americans are learning that there were multiple bombs found, dismantled and taken out of the Alfred P. Murrah building on April 19, 1995. They are learning that Timothy McVeigh had written a letter to his sister in which he claimed to be in the Special Forces for the U.S. Army. They are learning the bombing was being directed by FBI informants, just as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was. They are learning about 9/11 and the Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods and their own Army Counterinsurgency Manuals that teach officers how to commit false flag attacks to blame on their enemies.

In short, the people are learning the truth.

And now we see the same build-up to a false flag event taking place that we saw in 1995. At that time the U.S. had a corporate media desperate to fling mud at anyone concerned by the actions of their government, and it had a government that was desperately unpopular in the face of growing dissatisfaction. Today we see the exact same factors at play.

If anything, the situation today is worse than it was in the run-up to the Oklahoma City Bombing, with media consolidation meaning that groups of concerned citizens like the Oath Keepers are being attacked by the controlled minions on both the left and the right. And now it is not just the militia that is being demonized by the establishment: it is veterans and gun owners, third party supporters and libertarians, anti-war protestors and human rights campaigners, people who are upset with the government giving trillions to the banks that have engineered our current financial crisis in the first place. In short, everyone is now a potential terrorist, according to the governmental and media agencies that deign to limit our range of acceptable opinion and control dissent.

Even the word 'terrorist' means something more than it did back in 1995, after the false flag anthrax attack allowed the passage of the Patriot Act, after the boogey of Al-CIAda gave the NSA the opportunity to announce that they were collecting everyone's emails and everyone's telephone calls, after the former Homeland Security Secretary came out and admitted that the Bush administration had made up terror threats in order to scare the people into supporting the government, now we know what the real definition of terrorism is. It is governments scaring their own populations into line.

But there is something else that's different now from what it was in 1995. The people are learning something else about terrorism: they are not terrorists for speaking out against their government. They are not terrorists for wanting the government to stop selling their children into servitude to pay bankers their bonuses. They are not terrorists for pointing out that the FBI and the CIA and Mossad and MI6 are behind every major terrorist event.

The people are not terrorists because they do not want to see more death. They do not want more destruction, the spilling of the blood of their fellow citizens is not in their interests. Death and destruction only ever serves the governmental and financial and industrial interests who always grow in power and wealth in the wake of every tragedy. Time and again, the people pay with their lives, and the governments and the banks and the war machine only grows and prospers.

The people do not want terrorism because it does not benefit them. It only benefits the existing power structure.

And this time, if there is another staged event to blame on the government's enemy of the day, the people will know who to blame.

"Movie Predictive Programming / Occultic Connection"

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160501

OK. Got it. Thank you for you clarification.
It's outrageous then. And it must be a phenomenon restricted to the US. I don't think something like that ever happened here in Europe.

Yes, it's most ironic. Since the police is usually there to do just the opposite.
As for standing aside, I never heard of such in this kind of situation...

You're probably right. I'm somewhat aware of the NWO funding and control of racist and extremist groups.
If we have this kind of situations, and worse, happening all the time, it's a perfect excuse for more police state and police presence on the streets.
Watching them restore the order, people will welcome the police, and will see them as "guardians of the peace"...

I never miss that fact when I read about this kind of actions. People fighting fascists through fascist means and calling themselves "anti-fascists"... But the bigger irony in this kind of situations is not even that. Is that the police itself, acting solely to protect a group's right to freedom of speech, ends up being the most "pro-liberty" group of them all...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201041751748514609.html

UPDATED ON:
Saturday, April 17, 2010
12:14 Mecca time, 09:14 GMT


Court approves disputed Amazon dam


A Brazilian judge has overturned a decision that could have delayed construction of a huge Amazon dam opposed by locals, environmentalists and the director of the film Avatar.

The judge in Brasilia, the country's capital, reversed on Friday a decision to suspend contract bidding scheduled for next week for the 11,000MW Belo Monte dam, according to a statement by Brazil's solicitor-general.

He also said that the judge overturned the suspension of the environmental licence for the dam.

Renato Brill de Goes, the federal prosecutor who is acting on behalf of dam opponents, questioned why the dam was put back on track so quickly, just a day after the suspensions were appealed by the government.

He said that an appeal would be filed against this decision.

'Big steamroller'

James Cameron, the Avatar director, who recently spent a week in Brazil protesting against the dam, asserted that government pressure played a role in the quick court reversal.

"The justice system in Brazil has succumbed to government pressure and justice was not served in this case," he told Al Jazeera.

"The battle is not over and, in any event, we made news while we were."

The original decision halting the dam from going forward had come on Wednesday, when Cameron was visiting a small city near the proposed dam site.

Aneel, Brazil's electricity regulator, resumed plans to hold an auction on Tuesday to choose a consortium.

The consortium that offers the lowest price for producing electricity will build the $11bn dam and sell electricity to the nation.

Battle not over

Amazon Watch, a San Francisco-based group that works to protect the rain forest and the indigenous people living there, pledged on Friday to continue backing the anti-dam campaign.

"We are committed to supporting Brazilian indigenous peoples who have vowed to fight to stop the Belo Monte dam," the group said.

Amazon Watch members accompanied Cameron on his Brazil visit and said that "the battle is not over.

"This dam is one of the most destructive projects ever undertaken in the Amazon".

Belo Monte would be the world's third-largest hydroelectric energy producer, behind China's Three Gorges dam and the Itaipu dam that straddles the border of Brazil and Paraguay.

Environmentalists and indigenous groups say Belo Monte would devastate wildlife and the livelihoods of 40,000 people who live in the area to be flooded.

They also argue that the energy generated by the dam will largely go to big mining operations, instead of benefiting most Brazilians.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, has repeatedly insisted that the dam is essential, and says it will provide clean and renewable energy to feed increasing demand.

Latin America's largest nation has a fragile energy grid that was hit last year by a blackout that darkened much of the nation.

Belo Monte would supply six per cent of the country's electricity needs by 2014, the same year Brazil will host soccer's World Cup and just two years before Rio de Janeiro holds the 2016 Olympics.

International issue

Lula has suggested that foreigners should not tell Brazil what to do in the Amazon.

But Cameron said the nation's jungle is an international issue because the Brazilian Amazon is seen by many as the world's biggest natural defence against global warming.

It acts as a "sink", or absorber, of carbon dioxide while also serving as a contributor because about 75 per cent of Brazil's emissions come from rain-forest clearing, as vegetation burns and felled trees rot.

"I am sure (Silva) doesn't like us poking around in his affairs, but this is an international issue," Cameron said.

"The international community needs to engage on this issue because it affects all of us."

Media attention

Cameron said he believes his opposition to the dam will give opponents a boost because his presence has focused media attention on the issue.

"The tug of war has become quite public in the media in Brazil and internationally, and that's a gain because up until now the people affected by the dam haven't had a voice," he said.

Sigourney Weaver, actress who starred in Avatar, accompanied Cameron to the jungle city of Altamira and to Brasilia for a protest march.

Their visit was reminiscent of a 1989 trip by the rock star Sting, who protested against the same dam alongside Indians in an event that helped persuade international lenders not to finance it.

Brazil was reeling under a heavy foreign debt at the time.

But an economically booming Brazil no longer needs money from abroad now to build the dam.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jTlosv9uqU7jQUMPogpOKouzppMA


Finnish post to start digital mail trial

By Laura Vinha (AFP) – Apr 1, 2010


HELSINKI — Love letters, payslips and overdue bills will not be spared when Finland's post starts opening mail and sending scanned copies to selected recipients in a trial aimed at cutting costs and emissions.

Volunteers will receive an e-mail or a mobile phone text message when their mail has been opened, scanned and sent as a PDF file to a secure digital mailbox, to which only the recipient has access, a post official told AFP.

"This (secure digital mailbox) is totally different from e-mail. It is comparable to web banking," said Tommi Tikka, development director at state-owned Itella, which runs the Nordic country's postal system.

The "highly automated" conversion of letters into electronic documents would be conducted in "special, secured premises" where staff are bound by strict confidentiality obligations, Tikka said, insisting that the initiative was not an April Fools joke.

Love letters and other personal messages would not be spared in the experiment, which has generated lively online discussion in high-tech Finland, home to top mobile phone maker Nokia.

"Itella is doing in Finland what the KGB did in its time in the Soviet Union and the Stasi in East Germany. Itella is reading people's private mail," one commentator using the name "Itella agentti", or "Itella agent", said on a debate forum hosted by leading daily Helsingin Sanomat.

But Tikka insisted the service complied with correspondence secrecy laws and everyone who had volunteered for the trial had signed an agreement with Itella for their post to be opened and converted into an electronic format.

"Our workers do not read the mail. How could love letters be filtered out?" said Tikka, adding Itella would not keep copies of letters.

"We want to find out what kind of content clients want to start receiving electronically ... Are personal letters among those that are not wanted in a digital form? We will find out," he said.

The size and bulk of envelopes would be analysed to filter out mail not suited for scanning, and those obviously containing items such as bank cards or voting ballots would not be opened, Tikka said.

So far, 126 households and 20 businesses in Anttila, an area of scattered settlement in the southern town of Porvoo, had volunteered to join the trial, which starts in the week of April 12 and runs until the end of the year.

And those who long for the scent and feel of stationery need not despair: once scanned, correspondence will be returned to its envelope and delivered in the normal fashion.

But the postman will only call twice a week at the homes of participating residents. Deliveries to mailboxes at a local store will be made three times a week.

"This is purely a trial. We don't know yet whether, at the end of the year, there will be aspects of this that could be applied more widely," Tikka said.

The Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) is working with Itella to evaluate the environmental impact of what Tikka called a "living lab experiment".

Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.

«Remember how they had a whole bunch of movies, in the three months before 9/11, like "Pearl Harbor" and others, about sneak attacks, and about America standing up, and about everybody joining the military when it happens? I mean, they had it so pre-programmed, that they went and told Hollywood to produce all those films to create this fake patriotic fervour ahead of the staged attacks of 9/11. That's how scripted all this is.»
--- Alex Jones, on the first hour of "The Alex Jones Show" April 13th 2010 edition


I remember well, back in 2001, of noticing how odd it was, when I passed near a kiosk in downtown Lisbon and noticed how all this different publications had the same theme on their covers: "Pearl Harbor". Like "National Geographic", for example, putting on it's cover "Pearl Harbor: Maps". I found it strange that such a huge "hype" had been created around this event, just because a movie about it had been released. It was not like the 50th anniversary of the attack or something, so why were all this publications creating such a hype? It seemed like it was part of some concerted propaganda campaign. I doubted all the publications were part of the same economic group that was making money out of the movie, so, again, why all the "hype"?

Two years later, researching about 9/11, I come across the following quotes:




Trying to figure out who was behind the attacks, I start delving into all this conspiracy stuff, and, listening to Alex Jones, am able to confirm the strong suspicion I had, that indeed movies and TV series, that are presented as pure entertainment, do have political propaganda inserted into them by the powers-that-be.

Then, more recently, thinking about possible movies used for political purposes, "Pearl Harbor" comes into my mind, and light bulbs go on...

I never mentioned this movie before, because the only thing I found really "suspicious" about it was the timing and the hype, but since Alex brought that up today on his show, I decided to post this.

I keep reading disparate numbers when I search for more information about it on the web. It's like you say, it appears to depend a lot on the type of hardware used. But from your estimate and the ones I've read, I think I can safely say that it costs a few dollars/euros a month. So it is feasible, for the time being, to even have a computer solely for this network.
Let's see how high will energy prices get...

Yes, it's similar in the way it works to other widely-used P2P file-sharing networks, and there's no need to have a computer dedicated only to it. However, if one finds it too much resource-consuming to his/her computer, I guess everyone could have a cheap/old computer connected to the web just for it and another for "normal" use. The problem, I guess, would be the amount of energy it would consume. Does anyone here have a good idea of how much does it cost to have a computer on all the time? Does it make a significant difference on the electric bill?

With what's starting to happen in New Zealand and the UK painting a not very bright future for online freedom of speech, perhaps it's a good idea to start looking at possible alternatives to the kind of networks we use, in case things really do get bad. Not that we should forget about fighting to protect the current right we have to use the Internet to freely spread our ideas and information, but it's always a good idea to have a "backup plan"...

A friend of mine has been talking to me about this network for years. Overall, I think it's a great idea. The only thing I don't like about it is that you can be contributing to the spread of things like ch*ld po*nography and such, and that has been the only reason I have never joined it so far. Also, because every computer also works as a server, for the network to work well, everyone has to have his/her computer on all the time, and with constant rising energy prices and an economic crisis only getting worse, I doubt many people will be willing to do that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

"ATTENTION: Wikileaks may be controlled oposition, be on guard!"

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=164863

You're welcome.

Source for that already publicly available on the web:
http://vimeo.com/8562317
(Interview aired on the Croatian TV channel HRT2, on December 28th 2009)

I'm not spreading any kind of "rumour"... I didn't say WikiLeaks is this or that. I only said what it might be, based on what I know.
I'm calling people's attention to facts that are known to be true, and asking everyone to "connect the dots" for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
Yes, if WikiLeaks is an honest organization, I could be someone working for the powers-that-be and be here maliciously trying to ruin their reputation.
All I can offer as proof of good intention is the previous posts I've made in this forum.
As for my suspicion being right or not, you might all want to hear what Wayne Madsen said about it on "The Alex Jones Show" edition I linked to and, again, draw your own conclusions. I'm not alone, not even here in this forum.
And, as for the kind of text that I've wrote, I didn't like having to write it. And to make things more simple, here's what I wrote to a moderator in here:

"I know that it's not very elegant or polite to cast suspicions about anyone or any organization without having any proofs. And, given the present situation, the last thing I want is to create any kind of infighting among anti-NWO organizations. But this is a most serious case that we're talking about, and if my suspicion is right, we could be talking about life-threatening situations... So that's why I decided to post the kind of text that I did, which has never been my style.
"Also, even if I'm right, I seriously doubt that we'll ever get any evidence of that. Since that, if they do omit important stuff on purpose, the persons who have leaked the information will surely be targeted by the powers-that-be and most likely not be able to tell anyone about what happened...
"Again, I'm sorry for the kind of text that I've posted, but that's what I felt morally obliged to do."

If you read anything worthy of being mentioned, please tell us. eheh

Chomsky is not an anarchist. Read Daniel Estulin's book about the Bilderberg Club.
He's a NWO shill. You don't have to go any further than this article. How can an anarchist argue in favour of *more* government power? Even *more* power to a government that keeps on growing in size and taking away people's rights...
The little I know from him only confirms what I read from Estulin... Obvious critics that don't actually reveal anything, pointing out only to petty wrongdoings by the US government, therefore diverting people's attention from the much more important (core) issues that constitute the root of everything that's wrong in society... Speaking out against people who don't believe the official story put out by the Warren Commission concerning the Kennedy assassination... (And I won't even go through the ridiculous position he has concerning 9/11...)

And he's apparently not alone, among hi-profile self-proclaimed anarchist University professors there in the US who are actually working for the powers-that-be. (By the way, what the hell is an anarchist doing brainwashing and domesticating the youth instead of urging them to study and think for themselves?)
I've met one myself, when I was there in the US some years ago, that I'm quite convinced was not what he claimed to be. An around 40 years-old or so, at the time, who the locals would call by the first name, trying to convince us "kids" (late teens and early twenties) at a meeting to commit acts of vandalism, only to later, during the street action, after being pushed against the wall, be the only one I've heard who was allowed to walk out of a surrounded group after, for some reason, having decided to simply drop down his arms and walk out of the ongoing collective arrest, while the police did nothing to prevent him from doing so... Therefore becoming one of the very few who was not arrested that day...
(Indeed, it stroke me as shocking and odd at the time that, the only person who would suggest for us to take such form of stupid action would be the only "adult" among us, that was supposed to be the most mature and wise of us all...)

Claiming oneself to be an anarchist and coherently behaving as such don't always go hand-in-hand, as I soon learned when I met some of the locals around here. And the thing you must always pay close attention to in any person is not the label one puts on him or herself, but what s/he does. That's what defines a person.