Duck-Talk: On Challenging Narrow Mind-Paths & Singular Lens-Views

Boiling Frogs Post: An Independent Site … Not a Duck Nest

The saying goes something like this: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. While the duck philosophy, if you chose to call it that, may apply to lots of things in life, it does not apply to everything. I am going to provide a specific context to narrow the scope of the philosophy’s application. The context: millions of political news, activism and blog sites.

At any given moment I can go and randomly pick out a dozen websites, spend less than fifteen minutes on each, and come back with a conclusive evaluation as to whether the website is Conservative, Liberal, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Libertarian or Socialist. I can sample a minimum of 23 posts, check out the bio and background of the main operators-authors, read several dozen readers’ comments, and I’ll tell you right away not only if it is a duck, but also what breed of duck it is. Try me. I’ll show you. I’ll prove it to you. Granted, with some there may be a few of sub-categories and secondary sub-categories involved, just like variations in breeds and sub-breeds, but those do not change the end result: It is a duck.

Are there any exceptions to my observations and conclusions within the context above? Yes. Surely. No matter how rare, and no matter how infrequent, exceptions do come along, and unlike popular belief, some exceptions do change the rules. Allow me to elaborate.

In December 2012, one of my favorite journalists and authors, William Jasper, wrote an excellent review of my book Classified Woman. In his comprehensive and well-written piece he briefly introduced and discussed this website- Boiling Frogs Post. Here is an excerpt [All Emphasis Mine]:

Classified Woman is a blood-boiling exposé that reads like a Robert Ludlum spy thriller. But this is not fiction, and the protagonist is not a macho Jason Bourne action hero. She is a petite, five-foot-three-inch woman of incredible courage and, seemingly, indomitable will who has stood toe-to-toe against forces of evil that have caused many other would-be patriots to wilt or cut and run. Her story is one of real-life heroism, and it is still being written. She continues to fight the good fight as founder/director of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition and as editor of Unfortunately, most of Edmonds’ contributing editors at Boiling Frogs are decidedly left of centre, and their anti-globalist, anti-war, anti-police-state arguments and analyses tend to range from the “progressive” to the Marxoid.

Contrary to what you may expect this characterization did not make me cringe. In fact, it made me smile, and then chuckle. I know you are scratching your head, so let me explain why before you end up with scabs on top of your head:

During the last four years I have been reading characterizations of Boiling Frogs Post being put forth by many different authors, groups and websites. Some characterize us as the ultimate left-wing bleeding heart liberal (aka Lefties) site, and they throw in a few samples as evidence to support it:

She showcases people like Christopher Hedges (Truth Dig), Shahid Buttar (Bill of Rights Defence Committee), Russ Baker, Chase Madar, Stephen Lendman … She has left-leaning partners such as Peter B. Collins and Eric Draitser …

While some are busy spewing the above characterization, others are engaged in a totally opposite portrayal of this same website-Boiling Frogs Post: The ultimate right-wing and conservative website. And while that is happening, another front is busy labelling us as an ultra-anarchistic and Libertarian front:

The website’s partners list include anarchist such as Andrew Gavin Marshall and James Corbett, and they showcase people such as Charlie McGrath… Boiling Frogs Post is a propaganda front for Libertarian and Capitalists with partners such as Guillermo Jimenez, and with their showcasing of figures such as Dr. Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and Lew Rockwell…

All this at the same time another group is painting us as Reaganisque Republicans with authors such as Paul Craig Roberts…

And of course there is this question of What about Sibel Edmonds? She is an anarchist. No, you are wrong. She is a leftie liberal, and definitely a Democrat. No, you have that totally wrong; in fact, she is ultra-conservative Right Wing-a Republican. Sorry, wrong again. Edmonds is an avid supporter of the libertarian view and party. That’s not right either. She is a Middle-Eastern terrorist who hates America. Wrong again, pal. She is a patriot who risked it all with her whistleblowing- a true American....

Now, can you see why I smile or chuckle when I see such characterizations and labelling, with all the opposing portrayals, of me and this website? I love it.  What are we? A duck, goose, donkey or an owl? I dare anyone to come out with a conclusive and absolute characterization. But I know they can’t. They won’t.

Interestingly, two years ago, I write a piece on this same exact topic. Here are a few excerpts:

I write on Imam Fethullah Gulen, and some attack me with Anti-Muslim & Anti-Islam labels.

I write on the Israel lobby contributions to candidates, and others come after me with Anti-Israel & Anti-Semite tags.

I write on the Turkish lobby and it’s octopus like tentacles in purchasing politicians, and I become Anti-Turkey & Anti-Turkish to some.

I interview a respected guest like Chris Hedges, and my new label becomes Socialist-Communist within certain circuits.

My Boiling Frogs Podcast presents an admirable expert Dr. Woods on significant issues, and I get Tea-Bagger labels thrown at me from various websites and forums.

I criticize certain Neocon policies, and I am an Unrealistic Liberal Fantasist to certain people who consider themselves realists.

I go after our out-of-control federal government police practices, and I am called Libertarian Anarchist by a few.

I stand by my rights and do my share by handing out information on TSA-DHS airport abuses, and many stop to call me Terrorist Sympathizer.

I choose to raise my daughter as a full-time stay at home mother, and to some I become a disgrace to the Feminist movement.

My whistleblower organization members happen to be mainly men, and I’m accused of being Sexist.

I can proudly declare this great website an exception to the duck philosophy. A non-duck among millions of ducks. On the other hand, I am realistic enough to know that the majority want and see ducks. Sadly this is due to the majority being ducks themselves. They seek one limited and narrow path to take. They seek a single lens to narrowly view the world around. They choose the easy way out by following one party or another, and believing in one philosophy or another. Yes, I know. Some call them the sheeple. I like to call them, at least in this commentary, the ducks- the consistent ducks who look like ducks, swim like ducks, and quack like ducks.

All this brings me to the non-duck exceptions. They are what I started this website and forum for: the irate minority. You see, if I wanted the majority, the ducks, I’d become or pose like one. But what for? What’s the point for being a duck among tens of millions of other ducks?

The ducks who find it difficult to view the world and its politics around them through many different wide-scope lenses should not come to this home of the irate minority to become members. If you are one of those-we don’t want you here. I don’t. There are millions of duck-nests out there ready to receive you - where you all get to quack as a big duck-choir.

The ducks who seek a singular narrow-path to waddle on do not belong here either. They can go waddle in millions of identical duck-paths all leading to the same destination.

As for all our non-duck visitors and members: we’ll remain  the exception, and remain proud of it. Always remember: "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds" - Samuel Adams

# # # #

Sibel Edmonds is the Publisher & Editor of Boiling Frogs Post and the author of the Memoir Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story. She is the recipient of the 2006 PEN Newman's Own First Amendment Award for her “commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy” Ms. Edmonds has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Exactly. I am deeply concerned with environmental issues, and I know that at least a few contributors to the page view climate change as a scam, while AG Marshall recently contributed an excellent piece which mentioned its dangers. I find the diversity of opinion to be a real plus for this site: it means I’m going to get opinions and analysis that may not always agree, but as such it opens up the possibility of learning something profoundly new and finding common ground with people I might otherwise disagree with. It’s extremely refreshing.

  2. chuck70 says:

    I like being a non-duck and enjoy all the non-duck fellowship.

  3. CuChulainn says:

    This is diversity within the corrupt and intellectually barren horizon of the Anglosaxon world; all of your “left” and “right” thinkers are within the spectrum of what Michel Clouscard calls the “liberal-libertaire,” however much we like and admire Paul Craig Roberts.

    For really stimulating thinkers on current events we need to get out of English, to folks like Alain Soral, Francis Cousin, Jean-Claude Michéa, Michel Drac, Pierre Hillard, etc.

  4. CuChulainn says:

    there are Italians too, like Constantino Preve, and Germans such as the Wertkritik crowd and, within his limits, Juergen Elsaesser.

  5. tonywicher says:


    I do not consider myself within any such intellectually barren horizon, nor do I consider this website to be so limited. By posting here, you also are part of BFP. I have found complete freedom to say what I think here, and I benefit greatly from having non-ducks, such as yourself, with whom to exchange ideas and information.

  6. HAL 9000 says:

    Oh, is this your snowbank?

  7. Ah, the “Duck Test.” We often hear this catch phrase in every day life, but wonder where it comes from? When did this maxim become an indelible imprint on the American psychological template? I found one example in a book I read years ago. It comes from Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones’ 1989 book – “The CIA & American Democracy,” page. 91, second paragraph. The context is about the nation of Guatemala, President Arbenz being communist, and the subsequent covert overthrow of its government:

    ‘The historian Richard Immerman suggests Arbenz was dubbed a Communist because he FAILED THE METAPHORICAL “DUCK TEST” (Caps by Pick), defined by Admiral Souers as follows: “If he quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, you just assume he’s a duck.”‘

    For those who don’t know, Admiral Sydney Souers was the first director of the Central Intelligence Group. The CIG was the predecessor to the CIA. I thought this historical quote by Admiral Souers might give us some perspective on the dangers of the “duck.” I guess it gives a whole new meaning to “duck and cover.” Sorry, I couldn’t resist….

    Excellent article, Sibel!

  8. tonywicher says:

    @Hal, To be a creative thinker is not to fit in. To seek the truth is not to fit in. As Plato says, friends of the truth are friends of each other. The Internet, and sites such as this one, offer a historic opportunity for such serious thinkers all over the world to come together and put their heads together to solve the problems of mankind.

  9. tonywicher says:


    Yeah, I always did have had my doubts about that duck test. I mean, how do you know it isn’t a drone duck that quacks and waddles until it gets a few feet away and then blows up?

  10. Richard says:

    Only a small minority is unwilling to sacrifice their principles for an agenda or ideology. That is the difference. Most people find it perfectly logical to ‘bend the truth a little’ if it serves the interest of their ideology or agenda. It’s just politics, a little white-lie or the noble lie, it’s for the greater good and so on. Eventually everything ends up on the altar because the ideology is always hungry. If you instead choose to hold on to truth and honesty, justice and openness, you’ll find you’re the odd one out. That is not how ‘the game’ is played. You will be labeled everything under the sun because surely, you must be working for some other agenda. To that majority it is an alien concept to put principles before ideology and agenda. It is a difference in priorities. I think I understand perfectly why you smile when being mislabeled for the umpteenth time. Its becomes an acknowledgement of having the priorities in order.

  11. NIce rant Sibel!

    I agree in the main with the concept/perception put forth. But hey don’t forget, if I remember my lifes observations… Ducks, like Geese, and bigger ones, eat a frog for breakfast. (It don’t have to be warmed up…!)

    “If it quacks, if it looks like one, if it has webbed feet, if Geo H.W. Busche is any where near… IT is A damned st/Dick…. //st through,/ (so sorry…!) Duck, greasy but not to bad barbequed!

    PS: hope your new tools will include strike through, it is a weird new device to make comments, and make it more multidimensional, it puts a line through a line of words, that may have been subliminal, and gives two sides to things.

  12. Unfortunately or not, the question of “ducks” is more complicated than our beloved Sibel presents it in her testy post. To begin with, the “multi-lensed” perspective on human affairs is the commonest of all “ducks” this most conformist of all nations has produced. Usually, it’s celebrated under the tags of “pluralism,” “multiculturalism,” “the end of mega narratives” and similar laudable principles regularly spewed out in new verbal wrappings by our fertile English departments and other centers of ideological production. In other words, just like “the end of ideology,” the “non-duck philosophy” is but another form of ideology. And this ideology is perfectly safe for the existing system of power as the short-lived and clueless OWS movement has demonstrated once again. Power can be confronted only with power. The “irate minority” is powerless minority by definition. This is why it’s irate and the pseudo-quote from Adams should be taken with a big spoon of salt. I believe the real significance of this and similar Internet projects lies somewhere else. The very political eclecticism and ideological amorphousness of their owners and subscribers point to their origin in American middle class, primarily that of professions. These are not the marginal (for this country) breeds of amateur politicos and professional party men from the Left and Right. They come from the backbone, the silent majority of this society. Though small in numbers, they may be the harbingers of some slow tectonic shifts in the thick of the middle class which is the only class in this country to have potential power to challenge the status quo. The very social position of this class–being in the middle, fearful to descend to the “less fortunate ones” and with no hope to join the plutonomy–predisposes it to the ideology of ideological non-commitment (“I am not a duck”), which is, I repeat, the essential ideology of the middle class (not to be confused with middle-class shills for every imaginable ideology of the ruling class). In practical politics, non-commitment amounts to the rejection of revolutionary, anti-systemic struggle. No, the self-preservation of the middle class requires changes within the general framework of capitalistic system. And there seems to be a certain consensus emerging among the irate minority of the middle class, if only as to what is wrong with the system: militarism and imperialism, the growing hiatus between the haves and have nots, the suppression of individual rights and liberties, the out-of-control power of TNCs, and so on. Much of this can be summarized as growing Fascist tendencies. But, hey, isn’t fighting Fascism a good old common ground for the ducks of many walks. In Europe they used to call it “People’s Front.”

  13. Sibel, for me it is impossible to describe in a limited number of words, the ways in which you, James Corbett, and many of the show regulars vibe in such a way that I can resonate with you/them.
    My own personal struggle with the Establishment for some 50 years cannot be labeled, yet creatures like the neocons would dismiss me as a foolish leftist of some sort. And to be fair, neocons are famous for denying that they are such creatures(i.,e., neocons).
    But I’m not interested in mindsets, group-think, ideologies, and utopian solutions.
    Because of our DNA and human brain hardwiring, many of us too easily submit to the tribe and need alpha types to “lead” us. Few wind up surviving their family/tribe/culture/religious programming. No one really knows why/how we come to be what we are. Anyone who has “sure answers” automatically loses my respect and interest.
    One of the great struggles that one can face can come in Zen-like questions: Who/what is is the “you” that is tortured by the brutality of humanity? What is the sound of one neocon hand clapping? This civilization/life thing is quite temporary and will soon mutate and ultimately its very molecular structure will dissolve.
    Yet certain people really piss me off in this passing existence!

    As I mentioned, I notice that my mere words can’t really go deep–but we are very limited creatures and my strong wish is that you never stop!

  14. CuChulainn says:

    netter at least has something to say

    however compromised by libertarian crankiness (it’s in the anglo-saxon DNA, as Weininger, Mencken & Orestes Brownson explained), Sibel’s work is deeply appreciated

  15. manix37 says:

    Hey Sibel, Did you purposely put a picture of GEESE up there? HAHA No ducks here!

  16. ProudPrimate says:

    There are areas where Left and Right are not irrelevant. But the truth about Gladio A & B, about Gülen’s madrasas, about Abdullah Çatlı’s jailbreak via NATO helicopter, about Graham Fuller’s CV and that of his son-in-law — what have these got to do with right and left? Nothing! They have to do with RIGHT AND WRONG! With life under a CRIMINAL government, ruling a people without a clue.

  17. CuChulainn says:

    wordy yes but he is right that incoherence is not necessarily a sign of virtue

    it’s true the effort to use words meaningfully can set you back in a food fight

  18. Rose Mary says:

    “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. ” (Duck philosophy)

    They will always try to position us (.. adversaries) as “communists”, “fascists”, “violent”, “racists” … They are in their rights to do so. It is predictable behavior. We have the rights to do the same, position them as “communists”, “fascists”, “violent”, “racists” … and they are probably happy with that as long as they are not named liars, traitors and murderers.

  19. @PP

    Yes, Gladio B series is an absolute gem and the main reason I subscribed to BF. It’s so important and comprehensive that I wish this site had a permanent section on this topic with a discussion/message board.

  20. tonywicher says:

    The way I see this site is as a place where people put their heads together to take action, not just sit around and bitch. We do have a common enemy, and we must identify it, understand it very clearly, organize to defeat it, and be clear about what will replace the Wall Street financial system. “Occupy Wall Street” did help identify the enemy, but it offered no organization or program, no battle plan to defeat this enemy that people could get behind, and no clear concept about what will replace it. I would like to draw the attention of netter and others to the fact that such a battle plan exists, with a very sharp and clear objective, and that there also exists an international organization that is fighting with great energy and dedication to achieve this objective. This objective is the reinstatement of Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall banking regulation law of 1933. The organization that has been pushing this for several years, not only in this country but all over the world, in Europe, South America, Australia and elsewhere, is LarouchePAC, the LaRouche Political Action Committee ( There are now three bills in Congress to restore Glass-Steagall. HR 129 sponsored by Democrat Marcy Kaptur has 70 co-sponsors so far. Two months ago Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced an identical bill in the Senate (S. 985), and recently Elizabeth Warren has introduced the “Glass Steagall for the 21st century” bill with three co-sponsors so far. In Germany, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the wife of Lyndon LaRouche, heads a party called BuSo with six slates totaling 38 direct candidates for Federal election. Glass-Steagall is their program. LaRouche says that the transatlantic financial system is collapsing as we speak, and there is no alternative. If we do not stop the collapse and end the grip of the financial oligarchy on the world economy by reinstating Glass-Steagall, the oligarchy will install a fascist dictatorship to manage the collapse to keep them in power. LaRouche maintains that passing Glass-Steagall will bankrupt Wall Street and smash the power of the oligarchy. Besides providing this focus on who is the enemy and how to defeat him, LaRouche also provides the concept for what will replace Wall Street. We get rid of the Federal Reserve system, and replace it with a federal credit system, namely, a Bank of the United States with a charter for economic development, such as originally conceived by Alexander Hamilton and implemented under Washington as an integral part of the implied powers of the Constitution. Using this credit system, we can restore our economy to full employment and a rising standard of living. Go to, read some articles, and join this epic battle for humanity!

  21. Rose Mary says:

    “Occupy Wall Street did help identify the enemy ..”

    That would be a big step. If this site can formulate an answer, that is something. So far there is no answer, and when there is hope of consensus .. next thing will be half a dozen phony nicks trying to derail it. Who are they? Why are they so afraid?

    There is a scheme of deception in media – including online – and obviously they (.. more than bankers) are afraid of their deception being exposed. People like Paul Craig Roberts are cutting through their spin 🙂

  22. OK, so I’m the new guy and I’ll follow the Larouche guy if I must.
    Your label, as commonly applied, predicts who you should reflexively hate/love/agree-with/disagree-with/want-to-kill. To have and accept a label is to, in a way, be naked before the world, except for that spiked collar of expected conformity to the precepts of your label, around your neck. If that’s your bag, man…

    More and more I see people accept a label to some extent, then immediately follow it with a “but”. Ah, a shred of clothing at least.

    I would say, as a certain apostle did, put on the full suit of armor. We are at war make no mistake, and the issue is slavery, our slavery. When you fully grasp that, then you see how idiotic is for the slaves to take sides and slug it out with each other.

    Much intellectual effort is required to keep stepping back, back and further back, until you think there is nothing but abyss behind you, and then step back again. Much courage is required to believe what you see. The intellectual honesty to maintain your new perspective grates painfully against tribalism and nationalism and religion.

    I fall short. It’s been a heck of a struggle for decades just to get to the point where I can catch a glimpse of the place I should be. It’s still a distance away. Others are far ahead of me.

    Being stripped down to a label makes us fragile in a time when the very ground of our reality may drop out from under us without warning. The future is full of immense surprises. Suit up.

  23. tonywicher says:

    Knarf, I’m a truthseeker. I have no ideology other than there is such a thing as the truth, it is only one but each individual approaches it differently. No label fits me, but nobody can prevent being labeled by people who know nothing about one or who are hostile. I only recently became affiliated with the LaRouche movement. LaRouche is about to turn 91 and has been fighting the good fight since the end of WW2. He has made many, many enemies in high places over the years and there are all sorts of images and memes and slanders about him and his movement. Just read the Wikipedia article on LaRouche and you will encounter most of them. But if you actually take the time to read and understand what the LaRouche people are saying, I think you will be surprised by its quality. I certainly was.

    Here are some links:

    I hope people will not think I am proselytizing for LaRouche here at BFP. If I am, I in my defense I can say only that I have also mentioned BFP frequently and favorably to people in the LaRouche movement. I am trying to bring us together for the common good.

  24. ProudPrimate says:

    I’m uneasy about LaRouche in some ways, but I have to give his organization credit: he knew all about Gladio Part A way before most other people. His bureau chief in Berlin was Webster Tarpley, who with his staff at the request of members of the Italian parliament did the study in 1978 and wrote the book “Chi a ucciso Aldo Moro?” (Who killed Aldo Moro?). They concluded correctly that it was NATO intelligence.

  25. tonywicher says:


    Webster Tarpley’s name is mud at BFP since he repeatedly and without the slightest justification smeared Sibel Edmonds. He does this to anybody he sees as a rival. He has a pathological ego and it affects his judgment. He left the LaRouche movement in the 90’s, but he still gets most of his ideas from LaRouche while giving him no credit and instead denouncing him as a crackpot. You can get better intelligence and analysis from Jeff Steinberg of EIR than you can from Tarpley. Nevertheless I still listen to Tarpley’s weekly broadcast. His reporting and analysis of Syria, Libya and Egypt has been good.

  26. Nice post Sibel, but you know it won’t do any good.
    they all know what reeeealy are! 🙂

    the problem and advantage of being surrounded by enemies is no matter what direction you turn there’s something worth shooting. every camp has enemies at this point. keep shooting.

    To many people IMO are overly sensitive if you attack a part of their group/ideology. Even if you embrace an honest player/concept within their camp.

    The “if your not with us your against us” mentality does not just apply to the right. it’s seems to be a faction of every camp.

  27. ProudPrimate says:

    I agree with your assessment of Tarpley’s personality. The huge flap over the (his big) Kennebunk Manifesto back in 07 (I think) kind of ruined him, and yes, it was a jealous protection of his own potential glorification. I wasn’t aware he had flamed Sibel too. My reason for mention was the excellent source work available on the Gladio from the LaRouche organization, the Aldo Moro book being only one early example.

  28. “I am what I am, and that’s all that I am.” ~Popeye the Sailor Man

    Thank you Sibel for all that you do, all that you say, and all that you BE.

    ~ A proud irate minority member

  29. ProudPrimate says:

    So, I was unaware of Tarpley’s criticism of this site — fairly recent as I now discover — April 27. He makes reference to Sibel’s suggestion that NATO is attempting to bribe Putin with an excuse to crack down harder on Chechens. I also read just now Draitser’s rebuttal. Very interesting history there, too. Tarpley is a bit of a manipulator, with very sharp elbows.

    One thing though I have to pause when I hear, is the LIHOP vs. MIHOP issue. I was speaking to a Truther friend of my son’s in Boston about Sibel, and how important the Gladio B story is, and he was dismissive of her because of the LIHOP thing. She expressed a desire to kind of blend the two camps, as if the differences are minor. But I agree with my son’s friend, they are not minor, but they are the pinnacle of 9/11, and we bury that hatchet at our peril.

    I have not heard her say she DIS-believes in the controlled demolition of the towers and Building 7. But it would do me a world of good to hear her say, she has seen 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out(, and declare plainly what side she is on on this matter. Yes, it does matter.

  30. @ProudPrimate:

    1) MIHOP does not equal CD. MIHOP includes Gladio B, IMO. The direct involvement of Gladio B to 9/11 has never been stated, but has been implied a bunch of times, as in “this clears up so many questions, including those about 9/11 .” at the end of one of the Gladio B series (maybe the first one).

    2) It is probably more important that Sibel sticks to talking about what she has 100% integrity talking about. What she has seen first hand evidence of. Try to understand the importance of saying what she does, without speculating. Her opinion of CD has no positive value, but would be a long distraction.

  31. tonywicher says:

    Learn the truth about what happened on 9/11 by spending some time at, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. There you will find almost 2000 architects, engineers, physicists and chemists who prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that those buildings did not fall from fire and gravity alone. This is a physical impossibility. They were demolished. Large amounts of thermite residue, including chips of unexploded nano-thermite, were found in the dust. These facts refute “LIHOP” in any possible sense.

    Right now AE has a campaign going called “Rethink 911′.
    Take a look at this very effective piece by Cynthia McKinney, and donate a few bucks if you can:

  32. tonywicher says:

    Xicha, The Architects and Engineers deal in scientific facts, not unscientific beliefs. They are fully qualified as scientist, architects and engineers to say what they say, and are very careful not to say anything they are not fully qualified to say. Everything Sibel says about Gladio B shows that our national security state organizes and executes false-flag terrorism. 9/11 is just the most spectacular example. AE’s work just provides scientific proof that this must be the case. As far as I’m concerned it’s an open and shut case. I don’t argue about it; I just direct people with questions to

  33. ProudPrimate says:

    Right, Tony. They (principally Richard Gage) are very careful to say, “it is not our purview to discuss things for which we have less than complete evidence. What we do discuss is the rock solid evidence of controlled demolition, and the total refutation of the gravitational collapse explanation put forward by the official voices.” (paraphrased from memory)

    I agree that Sibel’s case based in Gladio B is one of the pillars of our freedom, and I broadcast it as far and wide as I can. I was deep into Gladio A before I ever heard of Susurluk, but of course, it fits like hand in glove. And I also agree that one must pick one’s battles. One cannot fight every battle at once, and it is wise to concentrate ones strength and durability where it will buy the richest result, which she has surely been doing. Which is why we are all here all the time, isn’t it?

    But the case for nano-thermite is so patently clear, given the dust, the squibbs, the molten metal, the face-powder grade concrete remnant, and the quickly hustled-away structural steel — a high crime, for former US Atty’s Giuliani and Chertoff who know better — and the equally high tech nano-anthrax, best described by Prof. Francis Boyle, whom Sibel and Peter have had on the forum in audio. The evidence is not rickety.

    It’s not my place to instruct the great lady (and I mean that) but it would be swell to hear a word or two of acknowledgement of this, to me, cornerstone of any new world we may ever hope for.

  34. I’m not questioning your statements about CD. I’m saying that your asking Sibel to comment on it will only lead to distraction. Try harder to get this through your head. Sibel’s integrity is key here. Her statements on CD are completely meaningless and without authority. Requesting and/or needing her to make statements about CD is also a non-positive distraction, IMO.

  35. I don’t need to know what kind of “duck” Sibel is, concerning CD, because it is immaterial, in relation to protecting her integrity regarding her eye-witness testimony. Which is really more important to you?

  36. ProudPrimate says:

    I will leave the matter at rest hereafter

  37. Since the theme of 911 and Gladio B has been raised here, I am surprised that the Gladio B series has not been reflected in “Complete 911 Timeline” at History Commons. The other day I checked the Zawahiri timeline and there was nothing there on his Baku meeting with Bandar and US gentlemen. Too bad because this Timeline is the essential tool for thousands of researches.

  38. I subscribe to your website because I believe you courageously speak the truth from your heart. The truth can emerge from varying voices and points of view, like light radiating from a diamond. I also really like James Corbett, and Paul Craig Roberts.

  39. tonywicher says:

    Xicha, now I agree with you 100%.

  40. @netter:

    Excellent point about the 9/11 Timeline. This Gladio B info should be there. After the series came out, I was having a hard time with even some of the other BFP producers referencing the information. We need more efforts to push this info and I’d love to see a DVD for the next BFP fund-raiser.

  41. (meaning that the other producers were talking about the subject in detail, with guests, and not referencing it.)

  42. Netter: you are saying some heavy stuff there pardner… !

    Not like I never heard none of that, and tell you what, I think you say that real good pardnar!

  43. Well… I just want to say… “good bye cruel world…”, Might as well say it now: Might as well!

    Me and you… let’s us just go toward that reality that we must… go to…

  44. Well… I just want to say… “good bye cruel world…”, Might as well say it now: Might as well!

    Me and you… let’s us just go toward that cruel reality that we must… inevitably go to…

    It is a sad thing!!

Speak Your Mind