Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds: FBI’s Sheep-Dipped Man in a Whistleblowers Organization

Welcome to our seventh episode of Probable Cause. With this episode we are starting a new chain of subtopics within the context of our main topic-revolution. After discussing some of the obstacles in kindling the revolutionary process within individuals’ thoughts, we are moving to various tactics and operations that target revolutionaries during the second stage- collective activism within groups or networks.

The subject of today’s episode is Sheep-Dipping. As we know the Deep State’s main enemies are those who threaten the existence of the Deep State- and its government. Thus, the same weapons, tools and tactics used by the system against criminals are also utilized to counter those perceived as threats to and enemies of the state’s power. And one of these tools is the use of informants and covert operatives, aka undercover operatives of the state, aka sheep-dipped agents.

For our context I’m going to share with you a proven real-life case never told before: A real story of how the FBI in 2004-2005 tried to penetrate and neutralize our whistleblowers network- NSWBC, through its sheep-dipped operative- An operative who posed as an FBI whistleblower.

As always, I will be providing my take based on my experience and through my own personal lens and analyses, and will pose macro questions for you to consider. And as usual our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:

SUBSCRIBE

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

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

Comments

  1. Mgrdichian says:

    OMG!!!!! talk about cranking it up a few notches. You’re damn serious about revolution. Let’s go.

    I’ve been a 9-11 activist since ’07. Early on I learned about infiltration. I really don’t go to local 911 meetings anymore for a variety of reasons. I’ve had talks about infiltration with activists I trust. One thing I’ve also learned is that an effective technique is to get activists suspicious of each other, effectively poisoning the well and simply sitting back and watch well-meaning activists self destruct. And I’ve personally concluded that to think any group is immune to infiltration is foolish. So sitting at a meeting with a dozen or so activists you can’t help but deduce there is a Judas in the room, but who? The only solution I’ve come up with talking to other activists is an attitude of complete transparency on everything. I don’t now how else to overcome it.

    Thank you, thank you, than you Sibel.

    As a p.s. and PLEASE DONT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY, I once suspected you as being the ultimate infiltrator. Why not? 9/11 activists are predominantly male so introduce and attractive articulate female into the mix and voila…. they’ll follow her anywhere. I know better now and I’m not afraid to admit my own paranoia.

    I really don’t have to much to add (yet), but I’m gonna be all ears on this one and glued to the comments,

    • Thank you for your frank comment, Mgr. I have heard that many, many, many times.

      With our group, I was the only one to start with. So it started with me, and then became 2, 3 … and grew from there. From that angle: I can see how it can be viewed as ‘possible’ honey trap. But generally speaking, not being too ugly, worked the other way- that, and gender and age, often became an obstacle. The avg years of experience for our members was around 20 yrs; we are talking veterans. And there I was, 31, with less than a year as a contractor.

      As for female members: all you have to do is to take a look at the list of gov NS whistleblowers. I’d say less than 10% female; for whatever reason. And again, not to generalize/stereotype, many of them (females) tend to want to focus on wounds/healing wounds/ licking wounds rather than go out and fight. I was considered ‘too hawkish’; I wanted to get out there, right in the middle of the battlefield, and fight. I didn’t have time for too much Kumbaya (at the time;-).

      9/11, Infiltration, not only for the purpose of information gathering, but also for marginalization and creating rift: oh yes. Unfortunately, they have been very successful. You are also right about the ‘paranoia’ effect. And that mind set goes a long way to achieve their goals: once set, they have to sit back and watch them eat each other- destroy each other; mission accomplished.

      • Mgrdichian says:

        One thing I’ll add is that I’ve often wished there was an effective bridge between NSWC and activists at large, As someone who deals regularly with the conspiracy theorist label, I get great inner strength from the outspoke positions of people like you, Coleen Rowley, Tony Schaefer, et al., but frustrated because there doesn’t seem to be an organic link between whistleblowers and common folk activists like me. If we can come up with a way to harness the energy of whistleblowers and dedicated activists we will, at the very least, make the sheep-dipped infiltrators really have to earn their pay.

        • If you’ve followed Tony Shaffer for any length of time on Twitter, you’ll know he’s a total FRAUD. I don’t know if he started out that way, but he sure is now.

          • Mgrdichian says:

            I haven’t. Tell me why

          • Mgrdichian says:

            UGH! Just did a quick search. UR right! I wonder what the “Probable Cause” is on that? When Sibel Edmonds tells us the bin Ladden threat is gone now that the marines got him, I’m moving to another country.

          • Shaffer: That one falls into a different category. Not the sheep-dipped ones, but the ones that are pacified later via ‘carrots.’

            You get a WB who has lost his/her job, a spouse, kid(s). He or she is struggling financially big time, and is dealing with a spouse that says: ‘you have to put us first …’ Then, he or she is approached by a Think-Tank or an NGO who says, ‘you know we could really use your expertise, including your experience as a WB … come join us, have a 6 figure salary, a nice office, a prestigious title’ … and they lure the WB. That basically ends, pacifies, the WB. He/she is now back into the system. Add to that extra carrots: media promotion, media consultant/analyst positions as extras …

            So, that’s what I mean by ‘different category.’

            In general 50% of real whistleblowers, within a few years, after a while, get disgusted, go away in disgust … of course with their integrity in tact.

            Then you get another percentage who gets pacified by attractive jobs/$$$$, and then they are back into the system.

            … and a small percentage who endure, keep up the fight. Some call those (people like me): futile idealists … you know, within the irate minority group, radical …

          • Mgrdichian says:

            I haven’t stopped thinking about Shaffer since you pointed out how far afield he’s gone, I’m not sure I’m convinced he is in a special “category.” At most, right now I’d entertain he’s an anomaly, but not part of a category. Maybe I’m wrong, who knows? Need more info. Early on I started calling him (in my mind) “Mr. No-show” because more often than not I would see him billed as a guest at an event and then at the last minute he would back out, always claiming unexpected Army obligations. A consistent reoccurring MO. Has he ever shown up to an event where he was on the bill? I doubt it. This strikes me as someone who wants his statements broadcast loudly, but doesn’t want to be anywhere that he may encounter public scrutiny. Feeling kinda dumb right now for not being up to speed on important players, but grateful to be set straight here at BFP.

  2. CuChulainn says:

    cute in an Anderson Cooper sort of way says it all

  3. 344thBrother says:

    Howdy all, I’ve been sidelined with internet problems, but I’m back! : ) and probably flooding again.

    I’m downloading the sheep dip episode now and will listen today. At first blush, and without having heard it, I can say that I’m suspicious about Asange and I’ve always been suspicious about limited hang out artists in the community, Amy Goodman for instance.

    Yes, she does break some intense stuff (The “Convoy of death” for instance) about the 3000 Afghan men in the shipping containers smothered to death over 3 days in the Afghan desert after one of the early battles to “Find Bin Laden” *cough*. Rumsfeld was directly responsible for that horrendous mass murder. If ya’ll haven’t seen that report, I highly recommend it, and commend Amy for breaking it, however misguided she is.

    BUT, she is a total ZERO when it comes to real, substantial 911 Truth.

    So basically that has been and continues to be my measuring stick. If they come out for 911 facts that conflict in a substantial way with the “Official narrative”, then I tend to trust them because, I believe that this is the one area that the powers that be cannot afford to let anything out. I expect that Amy would say in her own defense that she’s doing more good than not with her “Democracy Now!” *Cough* show, and that she’d lose her Rockefeller Foundation funding if she spoke up about watching the controlled demolition of WTC 7 (She did).

    But what I would say to Amy is this:

    “Dear Amy” you can expose all you like about Al CIAda and the bogus “War on Terra” and even about the First Responders who died from the WTC Dust, but until you report the facts of 911 truth that prove the official LIE, you’re still leading people down a rabbit trail, and you’re doing more harm than good. That’s just the facts and you have to answer for your duplicity.

    And… have a nice sheep dipped day/FAKE Whistleblower day.”

    peace freedom truth justice
    keep the faith
    d

    • totally !

    • 344thBrother says:

      Just to clarify, I realize that Amy Goodman is really more of a gatekeeper than a fake whistle blower or a sheep dipped agent. They’re not exactly the same species, but they’re from the same pen.
      p
      d

    • In the labor movement we call sheep dipping “salting”. Lol, H-E-R-E (the hotel employees restaurant employees union) would have those aspiring to be organizers salt first as janitors, custodians, etc. They made college grads clean toilets to experience the struggle “from the inside.” When I attended an OIT (organizer in training) conference, the alf-cio recruiter advised against such practices saying it blurred the lines — after all, we were supposed to be on the side of justice and dignity (not undercover ops)! Back then I romanticized the notion of breaking a scab’s windows. That’s a marxist for you!

      I’ve since shed my aggressive/class-warfare ways (at least I hope I have) and did a lot of digging into Austrian Economics. Well, I’m proud to say I’ve graduated from the American school to the New Austrian School headed by Prof Fekete who takes it all the way back to Carl Menger!

      Fekete explains what “fractional reserve” banking really is, as well as depression and deflation.
      [http://www.professorfekete.com/articles%5CAEFDailyBell.pdf]
      We have to understand certain forms of usury (interest) are acceptable under cannon law as well as sharia. The back bone of mutual societies is a cooperative infrastructure. I’m studying this as I’m trying to develop a network of insurance brokers here in south texas.

      The occult/eugenicists/nihilists work in shadows, giving citizens no ‘handle’ to their organization. The open source, enlightened ones, work through free trade, a free exchange of ideas. But we have to understand how to contract properly and how to harness wealth.

      I’m preaching again, but it’s the only way I can get the antidote out. I feel like a teen with a crush on the truth, babbling here and there because I really want to shout to the whole world…. “Unions and cooperatives founded upon the constitution will be the epicenter of this revolution! PEACE and LOVE!”
      [follow me! http://www.twitter.com/rahulvarshney%5D

  4. This was for #6. Please excuse length but…
    The Geneva conventions were ‘rescinded’ at stroke of BUSH’s pen, 7th FEB 2002. – in a memo – signing away Rules of conduct between men at war on the fields of battle, wrought over centuries of blood, swept aside in ‘a memorandum’. a memo. Habeas Corpus rights, equally, over centuries of blood and guts, collectively fought for FAIR disclosure of evidence, overturned by ‘definition’ at behest of lawyers from superstate.
    Torture was decided NOT to be torture in the torture chambers of the black sites [Yoo], “because of the absence of any specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”.SWAGGARD and DUMASS could direct ‘the detainee’ with the ‘raising of an eyebrow’ to lie on the water board and almost drowned 80 +times but was ‘not torture’ because there was ‘no specific intent to harm’.
    Only to get him to tell them what they wanted to hear.
    How did the collective conscious of ‘the world’ allow it ?
    Just as they ‘allow’ the courts every excuse NOT to contest the evidence of 911 conspiracy gained by years of expert investigative forensic study.

    The whole google/facebook set up to surveil for, and protect, its creator, the intelligence superstate.

    ‘Catalyzing’ events’ are the overall play in hand that ‘learned helplessness’ feeds on. directing the population through next prearranged and open gates in a narrative..Hi-jackers. Lone-nuts etc. We, as ’sheep’ are mustered through. I see ‘us’, the individual spark of human; existing in ‘the same moment’- stood at an imaginary ‘line’ through space -, each at different levels of understanding, wavering between ‘the collective’ and ‘the individual’. The child born at this moment, and the adult dying at that same moment know very different things . the multi dimensional matrix type MDDS [massive digital data systems] algorithmic engines we discuss as ‘big brother’, must understand this divergence of understandings’ at any given time, and AI program to observe trends along that line; set to seek and P2OG type, destroy or infiltrate subversive/anarchy/genuine responses from the community if groundswell grows beyond given measures and; if not already factored into TIA computer/eugenics labs; anything written here, for instance, unidentified until then by the program; will most certainly be factored in moments after reading.
    .
    Two authors were killed recently after posting their research into 911 had yielded results ‘to be published’ but never were. Hastings and Marshall.

    To fight for our rights to be restored, identifies us as ‘terrorist’. Our wanting back our stolen rights makes us the terrorist. Until McPhearson gets the dvd past MSM superweb control mechanisms to light up every part of the public info-grid tomorrow morning shouting – in unison : “911 is a Demolition/False Flag’ and “Kennedy a DeepState Assassination” – to break this spell – we are pretty much captured and individually strung out into small scale advocacies while superstate ‘cognitively infiltrates’ the total field of reason and vision; fear being the ‘change agent’ kicker toward buttoning down individual/whole populations into learned helplessness.
    ISIS spells CRISIS by subliminal ‘neurobiology’. The healthy Epistemology of those applying gravitational science to the profound physical need of 81 [eighty-one] interlaced steel columns over the lower eight stories of a modern 47 storied steel framed High rise to instantaneously NOT BE THERE – to achieve Observed building behaviour[WTC7]; is only balanced out by the numbers of ‘good folk’ that don’t give a damn. That don’t see correlation between that single act of creatioNIST science, and Michael Chertoff ensuring the destruction of 911 evidence being CEO of the firm making TSA X-ray machines implemented as result of 911. Nor the co-incidence of ISIS, carrying amercian arms, paid for by Saudi Arabia, controlling the very corridor between Syria and Iran deepstate interests would ‘otherwise’ wish closed, in this covert war against Assad and Iran.

    As to NSA offering an opt-out. Individual acts of courage tend to come from individual outrages at the time. So giving two weeks to decide, gives plenty of time for internal ‘arguments’ to be made enough to mush the result. Trust the NSA ? Sure.
    To step out of TSA line, means your thinking is up to that point. Sum total of experience allows you to know that you are going to make issue of it. The others in the line don’t….are at different stages along the learning line, so they are confronted by YOU, not the determinants of ‘the line’.
    You become the threat, not the X-ray machine at the gate and i’d say superstate knows and programs around that.

  5. mariotrevi says:

    It’s very interesting. I can think about formal steps to vet new candidates to induction into the NSWC. Essentially, it would resemble a trial for Canonization in the Catholic Church: there was the devil’s advocate (trying to prove the candidate saint was flawed), and “God’s advocate”, who tried to prove the candidate saint was good enough to make it to saint-hood. In barebones trials, it’s normal to have investigation, discovery of evidence prior to trial, a presiding judge, the 2 advocates, the court reporter, the jury, the spectators. There are rules about admissible evidence, not going out of scope, direct examination and cross-examination, and so on. The judge’s job is to see to it that court rules are followed. The jury’s duty is to deliberate in secret in an attempt to reach a unanimous decision: saint or non-saint [meaning: True whistleblower, or sheep-dipped mole ]. In theory, there can be appeals, but that’s maybe to complicated. The visitors (say a quorum of ideally 10-20 , rotating, on conference call), is to bear witness to the trial for the whole of NSWC.
    More generally, NSWC could try to have a counter-intelligence frame-of-mind for new candidates, with assurances given as to respect of privacy, or bully tactics by the devil’s advocate, and so on [to be worked out] .

  6. albatross0612 says:

    Its not easy to communicate sometimes to the people you want to communicate with, the problems we’re dealing with are so big it stops making sense after a while. It gets quite personal, and then the shit is so far fetched no one belives you and you become the subject of attack by the people you care the most about. Good podcast as usual.

    • True. but don’t give up please.

    • andrei_tudor says:

      albatross0612,

      I agree, it stops to make sense after a while, but if you persist, it eventually starts to make sense again, when you are finally able to start connecting the dots. I think this is what makes it difficult to convince others, even those who might not believe the official 9/11 story, let’s say. It’s the accumulated knowledge that makes the difference, and allows one to see through the veil. Single events, even as large as 9/11, can be explained away as anomalies, products of rogue networks operating inside an otherwise honest system. The totality of these events cannot.

  7. When one has need to obtain a government-issued clearance to access classified information in the course of their employment, it’s a given the relevant government agency will carry out an investigation into one’s background and bona fides. You’re told up front that people who’ve known you for a number of years may be interviewed, and they expect you to hand over a list of such people. Ideally for their purposes, your list will include a cross-section of people in your life, including current or former co-workers, and friends not connected to your professional life. The investigators will, if they feel the need, develop other avenues of inquiry and talk to people you didn’t list.

    With relatively recent revelations about the depth of electronic intelligence-gathering directed at us all, I would say it’s a virtual certainty that such a investigation these days includes a routine inquiry to the NSA. This is probably not a request for massive amounts of data, phone logs and so forth, which would require thousands of man-hours to dig through. Rather, they probably merely check to see if you’ve tripped any red flags in the NSA’s automated algorithms, of a nature warranting further investigation.

    I find it a bit surprising that a group of whistleblowers would not use at least roughly similar techniques to vet new applicants. Why not require the applicant to provide a list of associates and friends, and turn that list over to a competent private investigator? (who ideally should have been vetted himself, by another PI he has no affiliation with). There are experienced professionals in the field who’re very adept at detecting and documenting deceitful behavior.

    I realize this is expensive and will require the hassle of obtaining necessary funding, but there’s simply no substitute for proper due diligence. As Sibel relates here, cuteness, eloquence and charm have zero value (maybe less than zero value) in terms of establishing bona fides.

    • A great proposal, Knarf.

    • mariotrevi says:

      In reply to Knarf:
      A suggestion I would have is to ask applicants to the NSWBC to list all cities in which they lived for a year or more since birth, with the dates. From this list, the idea is to force the applicant to stay “in character”, in intelligence-speak, which means to deliver answers that are plausible for someone that was really in those cities at those dates. The kinds of questions the interviewer can ask the applicant could be, if they say they were in San Francisco from 1985 to 1995, would be:
      (a) Where were you when the San Francisco earthquake of October 17 1989 occurred and what do you remember about the day of the eathquake?
      and
      (b) What music did you listen to and what movies did you see while you were living in San Francisco from 1985 to 1995?
      and one more:
      (c) Can you give me three little-known facts about San Francisco in the 1980s and 1990s?
      A genuine (non-fake) applicant, just from being in the Bay Area from 1985 to 1995, would usually be able to give much more detailed answers than a sheep-dipp. This can repeated for all the cities on the applicant’s list.
      The approach is “tell us about your life’s journey so far through verifiable facts”, where each good answer can often lead to new “good questions” to put to the applicant.

      • That kind of intrigue really isn’t necessary. Professional investigators have a number of ways to easily verify past places of residence, employment, and so forth.

        I know the state theoretically has the ability to manufacture a fully-documented, air-tight backstory if it decides to go into “full spectrum dominance” mode. I can’t come up with an answer to that scenario off the top of my head. But it just seems unlikely they go into that mode yet deploy an operative who isn’t exhaustively briefed on his backstory locales. The easiest way would be to manufacture a backstory for someone who didn’t need to be briefed because he/she had actually lived in the listed locations under a different identity.

        In any case, evaluating responses to “trick” questions is very subjective and probably not reliable.

        “I was out of town when the earthquake hit, my first memory is hearing about it on the news and trying to contact family and friends but not being able to get through”

        “I listened to mainstream pop music 30 years ago, I was never into the local music scene.”

        “I can’t offhand think of any ‘little known’ facts about San Fran, other than places I liked to eat at but can’t recall the address of, and that it’s chilly and damp at night even in summer . I’m terrible at this kind of thing…”

        • arealjeffersonian says:

          Knarf:

          You keep bringing up using Private Investigators. A good PI probably charges around $200/hr, and we’re talking serious background checks here – these people all came from intelligence services themselves, so we could expect that each background check would cost at least a couple of grand. So lets say roughly $2500 each (probably would be much more). Sibel says NSWBC had 100 plus members, so background checks on all would come to at least $250,000 – who pays the bill?

    • I would love to see you start this network, and achieve it. Our next episode will deal with that a bit. 100+ WBs with top-level expertise in background check/security/intel could not accomplish this, that si, without the needed resources. I wish we had guys/gals who were not struggling with feeding their kids/spouse, paying rents, facing attorney fees to fight their case, and would do that voluntarily.

      That could only be accomplished if: 1- we were independently wealthy, so that could we could afford spending our days doing that; 2- If we had funding/resources. As for funding, people who threw great advice and said ‘you had to do more, push harder), were never there to contribute and help us make it happen. The deep-pocket ones (NGO funders) had their own agenda which was the deep-state agenda.

      But I tell you this much: nothing has been more infuriating as people who continue living their life, their jobs, their family obligations, their hobbies and activities … come out with brilliant ideas and throw in brilliant suggestions, and then say: why don’t ‘THEY’ do this and this and that, and then that.’ Hear them screaming: ‘why don’t we get more leakers and whistleblowers.’ Guess what: 99.9% of those people were not anywhere to be seen, when people like me tried … and did. it. Collecting legal fees of $200K, well, who cares, figure out a way, starve your family, be homeless and do it .

      • Life is funny. Sometimes you merely need to achieve clarity about what you need, and then articulate what you need, and then it finds its way to you.

        I’ve admittedly arrived late to this particular scene. I can’t even recall what brought me here a couple of years ago. I guess I find this place attractive because here there are others who are sharing at least part of the load I carry. Specifically, a load of what I call “corrosive knowledge”. I’ve carried it for a half century now. Much of it will be my singular burden until I leave this flesh. Has to be that way.

        I certainly am not the one to form a network of investigators. I’m an electronic engineering technician, meaning I work in an engineering setting to diagnose and fix broken electronic…um…”stuff.” Never did anything else. Changed jobs a few times but have never been unemployed in over 40 years. My skill is in demand and I’m pretty good, though I do hit a tough problem quite often.

        I’ve found strangely enough, that if I’m hitting my head against the wall in trying to figure out a technical problem, if I stop for moment and clearly articulate to no one other than God (usually no one else is around because I’m a loner) that I’m stuck and need a breakthrough, it almost invariably tends to appear, usually within no more than a few minutes. My secret trick, revealed for the first time.

        Sibel, I for one will not be put off if you decide to regularly articulate here what NSWBC or something or someone you think is worthy, needs in terms of funds and / or volunteered services. If you’ve been doing it, I must have missed it. Put some flashing lights around it! Anyway, I speak as one who’s been a subscriber and contributor since before I even knew there is a NSWBC.

  8. albatross0612 says:

    to: knarf,
    Nepotism or colse relation will trump a background check, and anyone willing to put their ass on the line is not gonna have you checking out credibility with grandma who doesnt know a thing anyway. my 2 cents…

    • Family members are checked in the criminal databases but rarely if ever interviewed, from what I gather.

      They know what they’re doing, and so do the best PIs. If someone wants to pretend they’re something they’re not, it’s not so easy to come up with a cross-section of at least ten associates and friends who can be counted on to follow a phony script without contradiction, and also get your neighbors and other people you know but didn’t list, to play along as well.

      • albatross0612 says:

        Even ten associates can be compartmentalized, and im not trying to argue with your point, but if you’re trying to “blow a whistle” or the like you may not want to offer your colloeages up as a source of credibility.

        • Not only that, the whole concept of people standing for privacy, and against snooping/surveillance … being subjected to ‘investigation’ … no one with integrity would put up with that.

          And you are right about ‘associates’ who are still in: many would oblige and provide misinformation to marginalize the WB. It happens regularly with mainstream media reporter, calling their sources within these agencies to check/validate their new WB’s claim. Guess what happens?;-)

          • I guess I see it differently, Sibel. If I had a whistle to blow, and wanted to join a group of WB and be trusted by them to do no harm, I would expect them to expect full disclosure, independently verified. Virtually every significant WB previously handed over their privacy to the GOVERNMENT to go through the clearance process, correct?

            Standing for privacy…well, good luck. I gave up on the concept of privacy long ago when I understood the technical capabilities which are now coming into mainstream awareness. The only privacy is obscurity, because as long as one remains obscure and low-profile, the algorithms will more or less ignore the gigabytes of data which are automatically collected on everyone.

            My privacy, and yours, is gone. We aren’t getting it back. What interests me now is 1) public awareness of the actual situation, and 2) getting light shined into dark places where the parasites hide. I want THEIR “privacy” stripped away. We need to see the rats in the basement

            As for funding, give me an organization of WB with transparent finances and a transparent agenda (Peter M is on to something) and I’ll give til it hurts. And think about taking it on the road in something like a TED format, as a fund-raising technique. Have several WB give dynamic individual presentations which interact / overlap, and paint a mosaic of the Beast. Expect the audience to pay for this education up front in the ticket price, and then during the presentation put your organizational structure and balance sheet on the screen and ask for support.

            Those are my admittedly starry-eyed suggestions for funding, but I haven’t been where you’ve been Sibel, so I won’t be crushed if you throw cold water on it…

          • Mgrdichian says:

            BUMP! I won’t be crushed if you throw cold water on it…either

          • I wouldn’t call it ‘cold water.’ Once in a while I have to remind myself: during the initial stage, beginning of the journey, I was on the other side; watching it from the outside. And seeing through those exact same lenses.

            Doing that helps. It is unfair and unreasonable to point at that people and say: how could you not see this? It is so obvious? or, how could you be so naïve?!

            Boy, was I naïve! Was I gullible! Put me in the middle of a totally different battlefield, landscape, and I am sure I would go through the same type of learning curve, after each fall, after getting bloody with each blow … I guess this is why older people say things like ‘if I were to do it all over again, with what I know now …’

            On the positive note: I’m still standing; ain’t going anywhere. Our next episode will delve into another experience, teaching me another big lesson;-)

  9. Sibel, thank you again for an informative and interesting topic.

    I loved hearing your first hand experience of the FBI employee into the NSWC. It also helped me understand a little more about the workings of your coalition, which is appreciated.

    My contribution to this sub-topic links somehat to my last week’s contribution, by nature of the area of investigation it stems from; namely… the murky waters of organised child sexual abuse.

    The possible player in this world who I have now developed significant suspicion of, is the founder of the ITCCS (International Tribune for Crimes against Church and State), Kevin Annett. http://itccs.org

    After volunteering to help with James Corbett’s Open Source Investigation (current) into Paedophiles In Power, I looked to the ITCCS as a possible source of credible victim-stories of this phenomena; and although the ITCCS did lead me to such sources, along the way I noticed errors in Annett’s claims.

    The best summary of these errors is supplied by an investigative journalist and 10 year colleague of Annett’s, Alred L Webre on his site newsinsideout. http://youtu.be/4r4mpgSMW7U

    In the following link Webre interviews ITCCS Juror Alex Hunter, accompanied by residential school survivor Wa7tsek of the Burrard First Nations Band; their experience working with Annett and the ITCCS reveals many interesting claims about the methods of suppression and control used against such victim-advocates.
    http://newsinsideout.com/2014/12/itccs-juror-no-2012-trial-held-uk-queen-pope-ratzinger-trial-kevin-annett-fabrication/

    Webre’s claims against Annett go to the heart of the covert purpose of ITCCS; namely, I speculate, that of an information gathering node within this criiminal arena (“We need a central file on all the victims and victim-advocates of child sexual abuse!”, type of thing…), as well as it being an international false flag operation of ‘successful’ justice seeking for this issue… which by its very nature would calm and diminish the momentum of activists to pursue their own battles outside of the auspices of the ITCCS. An activist Honeytrap.

    I haven’t yet gathered significant proof to confirm Annett as a sheep-dipped agent, but I have gathered enough to give caution to the few victims and victim-advocates I have met.

  10. CuChulainn says:

    well what has happened with NSWBC? nothing new on the website since 2007; wouldn’t it at least be useful to bring together what we learned from this group?

    • You, and our irate minority group: yes. 99.9% of people know. People who think and say, yet do not do a single thing to help continue these types of movements: whether through $ contribution, legal help, technical help …

      If you were to ask the real whistleblowers: ‘What was the biggest/hardest thing and disappointment, defeat?’ They will not say the congress, media, this or that office … what they’d say: people. They let us down most.

      • 344thBrother says:

        “People let us down most”

        Yeah that’s the deepest cut. Especially the people who let you down or actively take you down for their own little gains. But even worse in the sum total are the masses of people who may know enough of what’s going on that they SHOULD be actively on your side in some reasonable way, who choose to tell you what it is you need to do while doing nothing themselves.

        I sense a lot of exhaustion in the rank and file people out there and I’m sure this is largely by design. It seems that in order to reach high office nowadays one has to be wicked enough to backstab your way up, then blackmailed enough to keep your mouth shut about your “Betters”.

        Once you’re IN your “High office” then all you have to do is do whatever awful, stupid, disgusting things you can to mess things up as badly as possible, to give people like us something to complain about and to split off a little splinter group whose primary focus is that particular set of issues that you have caused. And, then you just lie your butt off, obfuscate, make counter accusations, bribe other crooked officials, raise technical issues and lawyer up. You get rich, the “Betters” get some cover from the distraction, from the splintering effect and from the perception that “It’s politics of course it’s crooked”.

        Voilà! A star is born.

        These are the people we are up against, no wonder it’s so hard to beat them. The scum rises to the top.

        peace
        d

  11. Mgrdichian says:

    I think Sibel is trying to point out that sheep-dipping and infiltration, like the example she gave in her own experience, is happening everywhere, not just with high-level govt. whistleblowers and that it serves as a major impediment to ALL of OUR efforts that threaten the deep state, not just hers.

    I had a similar experience with the 2007 Tea Party in Boston (BTW I previously said they were in ’07 and ’08 but they were actually in ’06 and ’07).

    After our first Tea Party in ’06, which was a huge success, the organizing committee decided for the next Tea Party to include a one-day conference that was devoted exclusively to the scientific issues around the WTC. We on the organizing team felt mixing the political and governmental issues with the scientific issues was too much for the public to swallow in one conference. We had four speaker slots to fill for the conference portion at Fanieul Hall. We lined up Steven Jones (who announced his red/gray chip discovery), Kevin Ryan to talk about whistleblowing at Underwriters Labs and the science behind it, and new-on-the-scene that year, Richard Gage. And then we got Ray McGovern to agree to be the moderator. We were psyched. We had the three top experts on the scientific stuff agree to come and a former CIA analyst to moderate. All we needed was a keynote speaker. I won’t mention the name of who we chose except to say he had written a couple of books, had a metallurgical scientific background, had testified numerous times before Congress, and was now supporting AE911T. It seemed like a perfect fit.

    Then came the day of the event.

    All of our speakers arrived early and were dressed professionally. Dignified, just as we wanted. Then our keynote speaker walks in wearing old, wide wale corduroy pants and a ratty wool sweater. “What’s up with that? This is Fanieul Hall, not a church basement” we languished. “Okay, maybe he’s just an old hippie.” Whatever.

    In preparing for the event and prepping our guest speakers we were emphatic that the conference was about scientific issues only. And all of our promotions fell in line with that theme. No politics, inside job, fake terrorists, etc. Everything went flawlessly and all the speakers and Ray were “with the program.” Then, “our guest” came up to give the closing keynote. He spoke about his science background for all of 30 seconds and then spent the remainder of his time talking about Article V and calling for a Constitutional Convention. WTF!!!! All of our jaws dropped. We knew he had written a book about Article V, but we explicitly told him THIS conference was about the scientific stuff only. No one’s ever heard from “our guest” again.

    Now, I have no information to suggest he was a plant, an infiltrator, or a sheep-dipped anything. But we felt it was egg in our face. We were duped. We did all we could to keep things focussed and yet we were undermined by “one of our own.”

    What I’m saying is it can happen anywhere, to anyone at any time. And the closer any of us gets to the deep state mechanisms, the more likely this impediment will show it’s head and undermine the best laid intentions.

    I’d love to here from other activists who’ve had similar experiences and what we (not just Sibel) should do to be prepared.

    • JEFF…I just finished my riff a couple of minutes ago. And I can certainly relate to your experience. I went to a Richard Gage lecture in 2007 or was it 2008?–An amazing man!! And was hooked up for a while with a leading activist a few years back. I’m trying to do the hermit thing and shut down. Like you, on a global scale it(the great unraveling has begun!), but I keep returning to real human beings and their struggles because I know some of the territory.

    • SORRY MGRDICHIAN!! ‘Got you name wrong!!

    • MGR,

      “I think Sibel is trying to point out that sheep-dipping and infiltration, like the example she gave in her own experience, is happening everywhere, not just with high-level govt. whistleblowers”- most definitely. Yes. Various NGOs, activist groups, true alternative media groups …

      “What I’m saying is it can happen anywhere, to anyone at any time. And the closer any of us gets to the deep state mechanisms, the more likely this impediment will show it’s head and undermine the best laid intentions.”- Absolutely.

  12. Sibel; now we are getting more into what IS.
    My typical larger initial comments have to contain existential experiences. Real events that did or are happening now. I am interested in intellectual discussions, of course, and comments regarding the 37 key events which may end civilization by next Friday(I trust most of you catch the gallows humor).
    But your comments today bring things sharply back to reality–like a splash of cold water to the face.
    So a little bit about periods or “scenes” I’ve experienced directly or indirectly which were real and simply made me a bit more savvy. When I was in Peace corps training(10 weeks -1962), 50 of us out of 67 or so, got selected to be stationed in a 3rd world country. Our average age was about 24-25. Some of the group began to suspect/ wonder about a guy who was in his mid 30s and who stirred up a lot of debate in evening hours. I never had any talks with him directly–he probably wrote me off as a Southern ca. 21 yr. surfer jock. The interesting thing was that he did not show up among the 50 of us who went overseas. The suspicion was that he might’ve been a CIA operative.looking for real “lefties” or “commies”. The word “left wing” had a totally different meaning then. I remember watching the McCarthy Hearings on TV–intense.
    Another interesting item was that upon returning to my home town for a week break before we all met in Seattle, was that FBI agents had talked to various friends of mine and their parents and my references while I was in training. So my name is lodged somewhere in their cellars of near infinite information.
    While in the Philippines I was “schooled” on hiring of mercenaries, constant death threats among members of political parties in Philippines. I remember a truly surreal scene at an elementary 6th grade graduation ceremony in the rural area where I was asked to speak. There I was mumbling away in English and the local dialect knowing full well that about 8-10 men standing at the back of the audience were fully “packed”-mostly with 45s and small automatic rifles. I knew some of those men rather well and after my speech I went back and “rubbed elbows” with them as we drank a bottle or two of beer and smoked cigarettes. Apparently an attempt was made to assassinate one of these attending officials within the last 24 hrs.
    Enough for now-except I should point out that John Perkins(author of Professional Hitman”) served 3 years in the Peace Corps as part of his training.
    I strongly suggest that each person study themselves and live life as a” practice”, as it were–especially if you go against the grain. My daughter had to go through that drill with me. I feel you, Sibel, are a “warrior” –not in a physical sense: although I always suggest learning extreme self defense techniques like Krav Maga and hand gun practice(I have a handgun, but I’m no “2nd Amendment” person, since they don’t pay a serious attention to Article 1, Constitution). but this is for another discussion. I tend to follow “Bushido”(the way of the warrior-ancient Samurai)…but my personal code forbids me from being offensive. So I wind up being a hybrid. Plus I’m an old guy now and can pretend I have some damn thing or other wrong(slyness can help, at times)
    A LITTLE INTENSITY NOW regarding our thread we have here!! For me, trust no one! That includes me. Sibel’s words implied, of course, that a deep state person COULD be making comments on our fledging, but very important PROTOTYPE which Sibel has started. We are participating in a formant that is unique. The essence of my statement “trust no one” could be translated to EXPECT ANYTHING FROM ANYONE or what I usually follow; DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FOM ANYONE–if they show you integrity and critical thinking, consider yourself lucky.

    • Ron; I am inclined to agree with your somewhat cynical but all too realistic sentence, “trust no one”.

      Having started this more rigourous approach after being ‘burnt’ by somone whom I naively ‘trusted’ (I did NOT do my due diligence on this person), the pleasure for me lately has been finding some people whom I can trust.

      No doubt that’s why most of us are here and on similar reputable sites. And now, as BFP readers and commenters, we should each be checking each other out using the filter of critical thinking and fact checking.

      May we sniff out the sheep-dipped and enjoy the solace of those who remain.

    • Mgrdichian says:

      Wise words, Ron.

      “I strongly suggest that each person study themselves and live life as a” practice”, as it were–especially if you go against the grain”

      “EXPECT ANYTHING FROM ANYONE………DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FOM ANYONE”

      The only thing I can add is “Trust yourself, first”

    • 344thBrother says:

      @ron:
      RE: Trust no one.
      Personally, I can’t live like that. Without trust there can be no love. Having said that, in terms of this forum, I can say that I believe that the more success any group has in getting the truth out the more likely the group is to be targeted for dirty tricks. Which is the problem with any group that has clearly defined leadership. I’m not against it at all. I just recognize it as a fact. Any leader is a target.

      So, I guess my point is, “Trust but verify” Ronald Reagan. And if you’re a leader use a higher level of verification.

      Some guidelines I can think of..
      Anonymity is fine, but it’s also suspect on some level.
      If an individual or faction seems determined to attack others and foment discontent, they’re suspect.
      People who brown nose, should be viewed with caution. Ala Sibel’s FBI Man.
      “Trust but verify”.
      Be prepared to take some lumps, one of the reasons that the rulers, rule is that it’s a lot easier to win a rigged/dirty game than it is to fight and win against well entrenched cheaters.
      there are many more, I”m just out of them at the moment.
      p
      d

    • Great point, Ron.

      ‘Trust no one’: I learned it the hard way. In 2001, I started as a starry-eyes gal, and went through that learning curve painfully: various offices, congressional people, attorneys, NGOs …

      You see, when we apply what we have learned, then, they even use that against us. They say, look at this paranoid radical conspiracy theorists.

      Here is another prediction: as we get more visible with our program here and excellent discussion forum, we will begin seeing ‘new forces; aka members’ who will be very articulate in their responses, writing/comments, and begin the infiltration process … followed by ‘rift causing’ … The good thing: we have our eyes wide open here;-)

      • Thanks Sibel. My point “trust no one'” is a little severe and one needs to see the context whereby this severity is necessary. The FBI is such a matrix of facts lies, CYAs, psychopaths, etc.–one needs to be watchful. Obviously, there are a crazy number of “National Security” networks now in play and I can see myself as a younger guy getting nailed in a “Honey Trap ” Bam! “And I trusted her, shit!” Then one is faced with survival in a web. That is exactly what happened to John Perkins and a certain seductive woman that deeply affected his life. Sexual energy is big energy, in my analysis.
        In my daily world now, I don’t really adhere strongly to “trust no one”. But I do not expect anything from persons I’ve recently met. As I mentioned if they have integrity, empathy, etc.–that is a bonus and good luck. Interestingly, I’ve studied a bit about body language and I do not want to subtly project an image of non-trust–just stay neutral.
        BTW: an interesting point: about 4-5% of humans are psychopaths/sociopaths with zero conscience. That tells me that if an articulate quasi-academic(like the neocons) pops up on this format, I will be keeping that in mind

  13. I’d like to throw something out as a thought experiment. Keep in mind that this is addressing a “revolution” in our affairs and does not speak directly to Sibel’s example which has its own necessities and legal requirements due to the nature of ‘blowing the whistle’.

    I think the revolution must come primarily with hands open and palms up. By that I mean that every initiative would be open, above board and subject to verification. The current regime trucks in secrecy and deceit — they’re better armed and funded, comfortable enough living a lie, and form conspiracy by necessity (obvious when one considers what it takes for the 1% of the 1% to control the masses).

    Democracy is a word that gets tossed around carelessly in many different contexts, so let me define it for this discussion as essentially “choice versus being dictated to”.
    *
    Form a political party, for now let’s call it the ‘Repeal Party’ or the ‘Block Party’ (“take the country back, block by block”).
    Democracy BY EXAMPLE.
    Symbol: a kicking boot aimed at the arse of a donkey and an elephant.
    One person, one vote.
    Party reps of no term — if the people vote you out you’re out today.
    Simple finances published online for ANYONE to examine at any time.
    $50/yr membership with $200/yr maximum voluntary gifts — All recorded
    Narrow agendas. Examples: Abolish the TSA, Corporations are not persons, reestablish Habeas corpus, reestablish Bill of Rights (“free speech zones” – really?), invalidate notion of “secret evidence”, Torture is a crime to be prosecuted, End war on drugs, Repeal ObummerCare, etc..

    The point being to work against the encroachment as opposed to creating “programs”.

    In law there is “vexatious litigation”, well we institute “vexatious member”, and if enough members determine that another member is just stirring trouble then they’re suspended by a vote for a year or more.

    This is just ‘off the top’ thinking and maybe a pipe dream, but working from and sticking to core principles might just work. Pipe dream? Perhaps. Comments?

    • 344thBrother says:

      Peter M. Too far off the topic of professional saboteurs for me, but I love your symbol of the boot in the butts of a Donkey and an Elephant.

      • Yes, I’m speaking to the “revolution” prospects which would have been better suited to an earlier time in this conversation, but I went with the inspiration when it happened. My point is direct, however, and rightly or not it’s that in pursuit of the goal we will not win the game of “double top secrets” (that’s the game they play).

  14. 344thBrother says:

    @Sibel:
    OK I’ve listened to #7 and my compliments on another brave job very well done. Your delivery of the subject matter is clear, concise and thorough as usual.

    I’ve been caught up in what I know is one serious, dangerous and heinous character assassination (Right out of the Communist playbook) by a global security NGO and what I believe was an attack on the original “Scholarsfor911Truth.org” by either agents or useful idiots, or both. In the former, my personal history was very harshly attacked when I took on a local fusion center in a local news forum. These attacks got libelous and extreme. They got dangerous when the attackers (from anonymous URL sites that were untraceable) started discussing my location, description of my vehicle and myself and claims that I was a serious threat to police and other illegal-ridiculous claims.

    The latter revolved around different members of the Scholars group tossing around claims that other effective members were “Agents” etc. and resulted in the break-up of that powerful group right when the thermite evidence was coming fast and solid.

    “Dr. Judy Wood” and her unsubstantiated claims of “Directed energy weapons” was one of those that were directly involved in those attacks. Instead of presenting her information in a hypothesis/debate and discussion format as the other scientists were doing with their information in an effort to flesh out, quantify and solidify the theories, she went on the attack against Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and other members of the AE911Truth.org group who were doing analysis of the building collapses at the WTC and Pentagon. These attacks resulted in the splitting off of “Scholarsfor911TruthandJustice” and polarizing of some of the membership.

    It’s a disgusting and effective tactic and it’s something we all need to be aware of and on guard against. Sibel it sounds like you took a lot of reasonable precautions against plants and instigators and still got hit hard. So, I want to go on record right now, for what it’s worth.

    My true name is David Short
    I am not now, nor never have been affiliated with ANY law enforcement, investigatory or government (Or NGO) covert agency of any kind. If I disagree with anyone in here, it will be at worst in a firm and purposeful manner and will not be in the form of personal attack or overt or covert action against any member of the group or the group as a whole.

    I’m here to learn and share what I know, what I believe and what I think in a free and open manner. Nor do I wish to be some sort of leader. I’m here to participate.

    Hopefully this doesn’t sound like I “Doth protesteth too much”. Such is the world we find ourselves in unfortunately.

    I guess the best any of us can do is to keep our radars up, swim in the current, beware of the sharks and share information in full knowledge that the waters are dangerous. So be it. “I knew the job was dangerous when I took it”.

    Thanks again for all you do and thanks to everyone here who is working in good faith to find and share the truth.

    peace freedom truth justice.
    d

    • Hi David, 344thBrother,

      I haven’t been on the receiving end (or the sending end, for that matter) of any villification campaigns or character assassinations, but I have spoken to one person who has been and they have described an extraordinary chain of events which would have driven me to ground had I been their subject. It must be a terrible experience.

      I’m also interested in what you mentioned about Judy Wood and, although it is slightly off topic, would like to ask – have you read her book? I ask because I have read it and find her analysis of the photographic (and other) evidence and her conclusions to be compelling.

      I appreciate that asking you this question might seem inflammatory but I ask because I have spoken to so few people who support her work and I’m wondering why this is the case.

      Shane

      • 344thBrother says:

        Shane:
        Yes it is a horrific experience to be character assassinated. I tried fighting it through a number of different avenues and hit dead ends in every one. That’s the problem with not being anonymous. You’re a target. On the other hand it gives what you say some credence that you’re willing to “Suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”.

        RE: Judy Wood.
        She did an excellent analysis of the time of collapse for the WTC towers in which she showed that in a “Pancake collapse” scenario, the minimum amount of time for an (Impossible) floor by floor progressive collapse would be 2 minutes. This was one of the first analysis of the collapses that was done using physics, and for that I thank her for her good work. She was respected in the Scholarsfor911Truth.org group for that work.

        When she came out with her theory of directed energy weapons, powered by an abberant hurricane, with the “Toasted cars” and the strange holes in WTC 6 and all of that, in my opinion she over-reached. Yes I personally believe that we were hit with the kitchen sink on 911. I believe that it’s likelly that a missile or a shape/fuel air charge hit the Pentagon, possibly with other explosives planted throughout the accounting departments. I think that the collapse of the Pentagon was an anomaly and it was predicted before it happened (Sound familiar?). I believe that there’s good evidence supporting a powerful smart bomb munition hitting WTC 6 based on analysis of the crater, the vaporized metal, the spherical shape and black insides and the nicely centered hole in the roof.

        Yes there is some weird “Toasted car” evidence that’s not entirely explained by thermite. I was particularly interested in the elevating platform that melted over the cab of one of the fire trucks. That took some incredible heat of short duration. Yes the hurricane that wasn’t reported during the media storm of 911 was an anomaly as well. And Judy Wood probably did make a few other valid and interesting points/questions in her book (Which I did not read). My issue with Judy Wood isn’t that she went off on a tangent with a poorly supported theory using theoretical weaponry of which we can find no hard evidence. Lots of theories start out poorly supported and gather evidentiary weight later (Thermite is a good example). BUT what Judy Wood did was ATTACK other members on the Thermite issue as if they were some sort of enemies and that the ONLY theory was her theory and everyone else was disinfo. This was at a time when the steel micro-spheres had been discovered and analyzed and when that evidence had some serious traction. So, instead of saying

        “Hey fellas! I found some other weird stuff here that I’m working on! Check out the toasted car thing!” etc. . she went on the war path against everyone who didn’t sign on to her theories exclusively. That’s not science and that’s not peer review and the timing of it made very suspicious.

        Then there’s all the air play her theories got immediately. “Hey look at this kooky space beam theory by the PREEMINENT 911 TRUTHER DR. JUDY WOOD!!!” “NO WONDER NOBODY BELIEVES THEM!”

        Like that. So, right or wrong (I think she’s wrong for a lot of reasons) I disrespect her, I won’t buy her book, I think she dishonored herself in some vain search for personal glory and I wish she’d dry up and blow away. To me it’s a rabbit trail that’s not necessary to explaining the collapse of the towers and doesn’t answer a lot of the issues raised by the physical evidence. And if you don’t mind I’d rather not debate it.

        Having said that, thanks for asking anyway.

        peace
        d

        • Thanks for those thoughts, Dave.

          I hadn’t heard that view of Judy Wood attacking the ‘thermite camp’. From the way you described it, she seems to have done herself a disservice there.

          And yes. That’s fine… I don’t wish to debate it either. 🙂

          S

        • Good answer. I currently have a comment addressing things a little differently “awaiting moderation” — don’t know why — but Dave really hits important points.

    • 344thBrother says:

      PS I go by “Dave” or Brother, few people call me David.
      p
      d

    • Ron, on ‘Judy Wood’ and a few other examples like her, my position has been: silence. Because I have never been able to obtain sufficient evidence and collaboration to form an opinion and feel comfortable with that opinion, thus, silence. I just don’t know.

      With others, say ‘Snowden’: That’s different. And as you know, I didn’t sit back silently;-)

      • Mgrdichian says:

        I couldn’t agree more. “Silence” is one of the most powerful defenses against subversion that we have and it’s readily available. I’ll argue further that even when we do have an opinion, we need to ask ourselves whether speaking out or being silent better serves our efforts. My experience tells me 9 times out of 10 silence is the better option. We need to play to win, not simply to be “right”

        • mariotrevi says:

          This reminds me of the attorney William Pepper, who met Martin Luther King in the 60s, and was Attorney for Coretta King (widow of MLK) in the civil lawsuit: Coretta Scoot King et al vs. Loyd Jowers et al , which went to trial around 1999. It took, as I recall, years for Pepper to accept to represent James Earl Ray in an attempt to get a new trial. Pepper represented Ray after becoming “convinced” that Ray played no part in the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Ray died before any re-trial. After some time, the King family hired Pepper to sue Jowers and un-named/unknown co-conspirators for symbolic damages of $100 for being responsible for MLK’s death. The jury found in favor of the King family. William Pepper subsequently wrote the book: “An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King”.

          • Mgrdichian says:

            I know the story well and have read the book. By the end of the trial the “un-named/unknown co-conspisators” became known and among them was the US govt. We should revisit this when “Probable Cause” tackles media complicity with the deep state, since no media outlets covered this huge story except for the LA Times. IMO this glaring media avoidance speaks for itself. There is a great Pepper lecture on-line from Concordia University in Montreal. This lecture is very revealing on political assassinations, the deep state, and the extent to which they protect themselves, and gives his personal insights as far back as FDR .

      • I took a lot of flack for opposing the Snowden follies, and I’d do it again, yet I had to follow what you were getting at, which is when I realized Pierre just set up a corporation on Delaware “First Look” the pieces started to fall into place.
        There were things missing from the big picture, which most people accepted blindly. I didn’t. I wasn’t wired that way. I know nothing of Judy and opine accordingly.

      • That’s why we respect you Sibel!!

    • Power to you Dave!! We all seem to learn the hard way.

  15. Shane
    If I may — in the same politeness you conveyed to …Brother — I would ask that you reconsider the adjective “compelling” when referring to the work of Ms. Wood. In my view, Chandler’s measuring the absolute free-fall acceleration of WTC7 for about 100′ (confirmed by NIST) is “compelling”; Chandler’s, Szamboti’s and MacQueen’s noting that WTC1 fell at 2/3 free-fall and ALWAYS accelerating and NEVER decelerated through the collision with the lower portion of the building is “compelling” (google/youtube “auto collisions” to see examples of how anomalous that truly is) — the hitting/destructive force is transferred by the act of deceleration (it’s not the fall that kills ya, it’s the sudden stop at the bottom). HOW exactly it was achieved is at best “informed speculation”. We have a published paper indicating the presence of “unreacted nano-thermite” which, while criticized, has yet to have its conclusions effectively challenged in a peer reviewed journal. NIST nor any other agency that we know of conducted standard tests for explosives though high-order damage was evident. In my humble opinion, Ms. Wood’s theory of a DEW has no published support nor proof that such a weapon even exists.

    • PeterM;
      thank you for this comment; it deserves my attention.

      Due to my focus (at present) on another topic, however, I won’t be able to get to this for a while; and in a way I’m okay with that because I’m not willing or interested in debating what went on that day until and unless I have thoroughly reseached all aspects of the available evidence and theories.

      This is not because I don’t value ‘debate’, but it is influenced by my suspicion that debate about such ’causes’ can often lead ‘us’ to argue amongst ourselves, rather than to jointly focus on the fact that the official story is a white wash we should try to unite against those responsible for the white-wash.

      I know this sounds contradictory to some degree, but please note my mind is NOT made up yet on the actual cause and effects of the buildings destroyed that day. And, when the interest grabs me again, I promise I will look further into your area of knowledge.

      Cheers, Shane

      • To Shane – appreciate your maturity on this subject. It was such a trauma for so many of us, and the destruction still propagates in the frustration and suspicion created by conflicting theories, among those who should be allies first and foremost.

        I lost a friend because I refused to align myself with every jot and tittle of the narrative put forth by a certain group of engineers and architects, which he’s a member of. It was like, honest to God, either you’re with us 100% or you’re one of the lizards. The hell of it is, we agree on WHO and WHY, the only disagreement is HOW.

        I had enough of the bug myself that I had to work on it until I found a HOW which clicked for me, using my personal inside-out approach. My way of looking at monstrous acts relates to my handle here, Knarf (Frank backwards). There was a TV character years ago named Frank Black, who had a gift for getting inside the heads of monsters to solve or prevent their crimes. I feel I have something like that myself, and that’s how I approached analysis of 9/11. For me it bore fruit in what I think is a plausible theory. But I’ve never been evangelical about it. I know, and that’s good enough for me. If it is indeed the truth, then it will out, sooner or later. I can wait.

        • CuChulainn says:

          I know, and that’s good enough for me.
          with all due respect, i’m glad Sibel didn’t take this approach
          would you mind giving us at least a hint of what you know that the rest of us don’t on this vital subject?

          • tonywicher says:

            I have long resisted commenting on 9/11 itself here at BFP, because Sibel has indicated that she does not want to focus on it in detail, but since there seems to be an ongoing discussion here on this thread, I am going to take this opportunity to state my position. First, I would recommend that everybody go to the website of the 9/11 Consensus Panel (www.consensus911.org). This panel is headed by the academically eminent philosopher David Ray Griffin, who has written ten books on the subject. He has assembled twenty-five of what he considers to be the best thinkers on the subject – physicists, chemists, airline pilots and others. If you read all 46 of the consensus points and follow up on all the links, it will give you a basis to be able to answer with a depth of knowledge anyone who supports the government narrative. The one point that I would say every honest person with even a rudimentary understanding of physics agrees on is that the steel frame buildings that were the Twin Towers and Building Seven could not possibly have collapsed as they did from the impact of the planes, fire and gravity, but some additional force must have destroyed the supporting steel structures. The speed and symmetry of the collapse indicates an artificial cause. You can start with David Chandler’s video measurement of the collapse of Building Seven at free-fall acceleration, which according to Newton’s laws of motion indicates the instantaneous removal of the supporting structure consisting of 84 steel columns. How exactly this was done, what explosives were used and so forth has been a matter of endless speculation that has divided and hurt the 9/11 truth movement, and this kind of factionalism has of course been encouraged and fomented by the cognitive infiltrators of Cass Sunstein. I do have my own broader view of 9/11did happen, and I don’t mind talking about it provided . Based on all the evidence and articles cited by the 9/11 consensus panel, I think no planes were really hijacked, and the planes that hit the WTC were remote controlled drones with no passengers and no hijackers on them. The whole government narrative about the hijacking is a fabrication. I think if you go through all the articles cited in the 9/11 Consensus Panel you may come to agree with my view, but if you don’t, we still agree on the main thing, that the government is lying and covering up the facts, and we can agree to disagree about our theories until we can break the cover-up and get a real government investigation that will reveal the whole truth. Sibel is keeping silent even about the collapse of the WTC buildings, taking the position that she is not an expert on physics or building construction. My response is that I’m not an expert either, but I do claim to have a decent science education that includes a basic understanding of Newtonian mechanics that I would think every educated past the high school level in any decent school ought to have. It is good enough, at least, to follow Chandler’s measurements and reasoning. Lacking this much science education is practically like being illiterate as far as I’m concerned. Sibel comes at 9/11 from the perspective of a person expert in intelligence operations. Well, I’m not an expert in intelligence either. I have never been an FBI translator or an intelligence operative of any kind. Yet I can still follow her analysis of Gladio Plan B, and to understand 9/11 as the most spectacular of the Gladio B operations so far. Here analysis shines another light on 9/11 from a different perspective. There is only one truth, but the more light is shined on it from different perspectives, the more the whole truth is revealed.

          • CuChulainn says:

            tonywicher, Sibel is wise to stay away from this in my view–simply because it might appear to detract from her credibility in those areas where she has firsthand knowledge

          • Reply to CuChulainn and Tony,

            First of all Tony, apples and oranges, I think you’ll agree on reflection. Sibel revealed WHAT, WHO and WHY, along with HOW. In the instance of 9/11, not much is left to debate other than HOW. We all know the official narrative is implausible crap, and that very fact itself goes a long way to establish WHO and WHY.

            In regards to two things; the physics of the twin towers, and the workings of the fiendishly clever mind, I’ll quickly lay out what informs my opinion. Keeping in mind that we all have opinions and the apt analogy to a certain orifice we all have as well.

            Big things are fundamentally different than large things, in this universe. That may sound like a DUH, but it’s true in a way many people find counter-intuitive. Take the case of a solid sphere. For a sphere, there is a ratio between the internal volume, which could be called mass if the density is known, and the surface area. How many people would intuitively assume this ratio is constant as a sphere is scaled larger or smaller?

            If the ratio were constant, we would not exist to have this discussion, because a sphere of hydrogen the size of the Sun would behave no differently than a similar sphere the size of Jupiter. An I-beam, for another example, is shaped for optimal rigidity by cleverly maximizing the surface contour while minimizing mass. Any structural engineer knows you can’t take a small I-beam and simple scale it up in three dimensions while expecting its load capacity to scale up proportionately. In fact at some point it will not even be able to support itself. This is because the internal volume (mass) of the I-beam increases faster than the area of the surface contour, as you scale up.

            None of us had ever seen an artificially-constructed structure the scale of the twin towers, fail. In watching it happen we could only refer to intuition and the examples of smaller structures we’ve seen collapse, usually by intention as a result of demolition. The twin towers had far more mass per unit of surface area than anything we had ever seen fall down before, which made them counter-intuitively fragile in how they disintegrated. Total demolition only required one floor with sufficient mass above it, to fail. The resulting downward acceleration of the enormous mass above the failed floor created far more than enough force to utterly crush the structure beneath. Lacing the structure with hundreds of demolition charges simply was not necessary if one floor with enough mass above it, could be made to fail.

            The fiendishly clever mind would seek to make this happen in a way as consistent as possible with the “spectacle” we were shown, with the actual mechanism of failure as cleverly hidden as possible. In both towers, the impact floor happened to be the lowest floor which had recently had the fire-proofing replaced, on the structural beams. In each tower only a handful of floors underwent this work, and they were clustered above the respective impact points. This could not be a coincidence, the odds simply forbid it. If you restrict the target area for impact to only fifty floors, clustered between a point about ten stories below the top of the buildings and downward from there, accounting for the fact that lower floors were shielded by surrounding buildings, the odds of both planes impacting precisely the lowest floor with “new” fireproofing by sheer coincidence, is well over a thousand-to-one.

            So what, you say? Burning jet fuel can’t melt steel, even if the fireproofing was intended to fail. The thing is, the new fireproofing applied during the two years previous to 9/11, was spiked with chemicals which a) quickly corroded the steel, and b) provided the right mixture for an exothermic reaction initiated by burning jet fuel. The oxidizer for the reaction was provided by the rusting process. Enough beams on one or two floors were compromised by exothermic reactions to initiate a collapse, is my opinion.

            I’m assuming the impacting planes were in fact precision-guided drones loaded with extra fuel and possibly other accelerants, and the passenger planes were replaced in mid-air after the transponders were turned off, as originally envisioned in Operation Northwoods.

            The company which did the work to replace the fireproofing was Turner, and the CEO was Tom Leppert, a Bush family friend and political hopeful. He subsequently became mayor of Dallas but failed to get installed into the Congress. Possibly this means he’s suspected of having a conscience. We can only hope someday he or someone else peripherally involved will become a credible WB.

          • “Big things” should be “small things”. I wasn’t trying to be cryptic by contrasting “big” and “large”, it was just a brain fart induced by stress connected with the monstrosity in question. The emotional firewall required for dispassionate analysis is not easy for me.

            I’m going to make myself a sandwich, take care of routine chores, and probably not look at this again or respond to anything until at least Sunday night.

            Regards and respect, guys…

          • CuChulainn says:

            thank you

  16. You’re assuming the PTB (the 1% of the 1% as you say) allow the electoral process to work fairly and will just stand by and take their lumps when it looks to go against them.

    You have to grasp this: They either rule, or die. There is no conceding, no demurring to the will of the people and fading into retirement. Top of the heap, or death by violence extreme. They’ve slaughtered their way to the top, and they must sustain their position continuously by ruthless predation. There is no graceful descent from atop a mountain of corpses.

    Am I saying give up, don’t seek a revolution of perception and critical thought, an apocalypse in fact? No. I’m saying, don’t project your sensibilities and sense of fair play onto the adversary at the top of the food chain. He is the ultimate predator BY DEFINITION. By that I mean if he wasn’t the ultimate predator, he would be a bleeding corpse at the feet of whoever IS the ultimate predator.

    The visual analogy I see for this situation we seem to be sticking our toes into, is a couple of dozen people armed with pointy sticks, forming a complete circle around an enraged 800-pound grizzly bear. The people slowly tighten the circle, knowing that at some point the beast will charge in this direction or that, and a goodly number of them will be quickly slain in a horrendous manner. The plan is to converge on the flanks of the beast when he charges, and try to take him down before they all are slain.

    It’s a pretty sucky plan compared to a day at the beach, but under the circumstances, it’s all they (we) have.

    • I was replying to Peter M February 9, 2015 at 1:27 am, BTW. The interspersed comments obfuscate things when I continually keep forgetting to address my comments specifically.

      I apologise for any confusion.

    • Knarf

      I understand your analysis and largely agree that it is correct, but I see it possibly working in the same way as the civil rights movement “succeeded” (yes, still many problems). I think it worked primarily because their focus was along the lines of “get your boot off my neck”, not some ideological program (like a sculptor ‘removes’ from the stone what’s not wanted till the vision appears). Will TPTB resist and, at times, violently? Yes, I would expect it for the reasons you cited.

      • To PeterM February 9, 2015 at 3:54 am

        Not to stray way off topic, but the “success” of the civil rights movement is highly debatable, in that it led to programs and policies which utterly destroyed successive generations of families through perverse economic incentives, and then of course there’s the War on Drugs which came along and shot any survivors in the head.

        Your premise seems to be the PTB are some kind of stereotypical racists who have a knee jerk reaction against anything which might be characterized as progressive. I don’t know where to start, except that I automatically assume anything springing from the power structure which is characterized in the main stream as progressive and “good for us”, will eventually turn out to be a cynical, often deadly, manipulation. Calling the PTB racists is like calling the SS rude. True as far as it goes, but hardly a description which captures the depth of their malevolence.

        • Hi Knarf

          Black and minority America have achieved a LEGAL STATUS that did not exist prior to the civil rights movement. That the PTB have undermined people in other ways is not in dispute, and is an important though separate issue. This nation began with the outright theft of black labor through abject slavery which led to some creating vast fortunes. Native Americans were slaughtered wholesale and their lands stolen. Please believe me that I understand how ruthless any ruling structure can be, and ‘our’ history in particular.

          What I am suggesting is a way to work towards pushing back against the entrenched internal police state that is evolving rapidly, particularly since 9/11.

          To clarify my proposal — my ‘thought experiment’ — is to create a movement that is as TRANSPARENT to ALL as it can possibly be: the specific goals, the people and their forums as well as the means of financing. Why? To deflect the criticisms that will surely come as a storm. We would say, proudly as a group that 1) these are our goals, 2) this is who we are and 3) this is how we finance. That the corporate media will lie is a given, but the ability of anyone to easily determine that the criticisms are unfounded is key, I think.

          Peter

          • mariotrevi says:

            Maybe the prelude to the Russian Revolution of 1917 can inform a discussion of movements. Before the well-known revolution, there was the Russian Revolution of 1905. I don’t know much about it, although according to Wikipedia, at least one book was written about it.
            My own opinion, respectfully, is that movements are organic things, and that while people can take part in movements, creating them is difficult to accomplish. I agree with pretty much everything you say.

    • I like the way you think, Knarf. And the way you write. The grizzly bear analogy is vivid.

  17. To all: My apologies for going Rorschach on this thread, especially to Peter.

    Walter Joseph Kovacs is of course a fictional character which I unfortunately identify with, at least sometimes. There are reasons. It’s my problem and I should keep it out of polite discourse.

    Of course the hopeful approaches should be pursued, even if chances of success look slim. I do believe in faith against all odds, and would further assert the hope that merely increasing scrutiny and awareness of evil, for lack of a better term, may in fact cause it to implode on itself. It’s sure as hell worth a shot – correction – as many shots as it takes.

    Never give an inch to fear.

  18. John Phillips says:

    I just briefly reviewed the comments thus far; looking for two specific recent examples of uprising that were infiltrated and ultimately squashed…those would be Occupy Wall Street and Ferguson, MO.

    You bet Occupy was infiltrated and then stomped into oblivion! Infiltrated, marginalized and vilified in the press. What better example of what our government is willing to do to the citizens of this country. Those brave souls went for it and didn’t get the support they deserved! What better example of apathy than those who “watched!”

    The Ferguson riots are another example with a different strategy. Turn loose a few “agitators” among rightfully frightened and pissed people, and you can find someone to begin looting and burning of local business. A true revolt would look different and choose different targets with different objectives.

    Conquer and divide is they’re strategy and they are masters at it. Sibel knows this and is borne out in her experience.

    Yes, you and your group will be infiltrated one way or another. If your little group even “smells” influential and the least bit subversive, you will get some attention. If you think the NSA isn’t analyzing what’s on this blog….think again. Why do you think “they” collect “everything?” You really don’t think they’re just tucking it a way for a rainy day, do you? These folks use ALL the data syphoned up every day and use it every day!

    My policies or “rules” includes keeping my head down…one which I’m violating by participating in this forum. Why? Because Sibels’ work is that IMPORTANT!

    • Both are good examples, John.

      Someone else gave the original protests by the original Tea Party activists; that’s a great example as well (down to how it was coopted).

      “If your little group even “smells” influential and the least bit subversive, you will get some attention.” – Absolutely.

      I have to say, I am so heartened by decision to ‘violate’ that ‘rule.’ During my first few years of WB journey, I came to know so many people who’d say ‘I support you and what you people are doing, but no way I am going to sign ‘that’ petition, or, join ‘that’ rally or … because I don’t want to jeopardize my current job …. or … put my family at some risk … or risk the gov come after me for something I did years ago …’

      It goes to that saying: “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” We are where we are today, with all the evils around us (perpetual wars, torture, surveillance, patdowns …) just because of that. This is why we call our group ‘the irate minority.’

  19. I’ve read a lot of info by a lot of people over the years. There is a reason I am hanging tight here. Most people assume the info they get is correct. I know better- I’ll cross check for continuity of data. Occasionally my temper gets the best of me and I forget – as the nature of the info enrages me so. I tend to lose respect for info based on the media- exposure is one thing, but why compromise your integrity in the process?
    I honestly don’t care who is watching me, it fuels my contempt that much more, granted they mess with my “benefits” but I’ll take them over the Military Industrial Complex’s medical system. Sheeple need their bliss- I have discovered too many people want to stay uninformed because it just too depressing. OH? Let me tell you my story… you want to talk depressing?

    • Without that kind of courage, there is no hope.

      How many people have I encountered who say :’I believe in this cause, but I won’t sign, or put my name on it. I don’t want to get into trouble, or get my husband/son in trouble.’ Or, ‘My spouse works as a gov contractor and if we associate with you we may lose our job …’ Or, ‘We are weary of visiting activism websites, and get blacklisted.’ … Fear, fear, fear, fear. None of them stop to think: nothing could happen if millions did; they won’t jail 30 million. So imagine if everyone acted like you, and said, I’ll be the one (instead of I will wait and see how many others will actually do it … then I’ll rise up…). That’s the main point in change/revolution starting with each individual.

      Now I have John Lennon’s tune playing in my head: ‘Imagine all the people …’;-)

    • 344thBrother says:

      @Sibel:

      I have an original saying that I like:
      “He who dies with the biggest file, wins”.

      I’m not in any danger of winning, but just being on the playing field with folks such as yourself is a win to me.
      p
      d

  20. Well, then it seems the FBI considers the work of the Whistleblowers Organization to be that important that they tried to insert a FBI under cover agent.

    One could also interpret it that the FBI simply has too much money and too much time. But once the economy tanks then the FBI will be forced to cut back on spending as well.

  21. Trevor Aaronson wrote a book on the topic of FBI informants. He concluded that over 90% of the all “complots” discovered by the FBI were phony. And that in A LOT OF cases the FBI agents have (at least) tried to “entrap” people in doing things illegal.

    One has to look at it from the angle of the FBI budget. The FBI receives A LOT OF money and then the FBI (or any other government agency like e.g. NSA, CIA, NASA, Department of Defense, etc.) feel the pressure to justify those large budgets. The justification of the (large) FBI budget is to “roll up terrorists conspiracies”.

  22. A couple of things come to mind after reading your story of FBI guy announcing fealty to ‘the bench’ before testimony.
    Pat Tillman’s story. doco. Rumsfeld at the end of it in Hearings with Waxman etal. The generals. The Tillman Family after all their heartbreak and work, sat at back of room watching and listening to arch LIAR Rumsfeld obfuscate the words, a cat around the almost dead mouse. The Generals, jockey for position alongside Rumsfeld’s Narrative. Waxman, drinking it up like liquor. Nodding. Little handshakes at the end “good to see you Don”. Back off out to the Limo., surrounded by neat secretaries with clipboard and suit guys all trim and buff. The Tillman family , like 911 advocates at different forum, kept at back, forever distanced. Relegated. Dismissed without ONE moments recognition by the odious rumsfeld to ‘the facts of the matter’. They ‘Had their moment.” now Bye Bye. Power taking control.
    The Conspirator General taking over the process after all that work.
    And the Professional Liars from FBI in National Geographics disgusting Boston Bombing flick.
    “Some parts may be Reconstruction” National geographic began; repeatedly thereafter to string between anything possibly real’, a ‘re-construction’ of complete and utter fiction; presented as real: the art of a lie properly dressed.
    There is no footage of young Tsnarnev putting down his backpack in that street that day . National Geographic made up the scene where younger brother [perhaps] puts something down and walks away. Hired actors. Mercenary. They grained up footage, darkened the color and played it over and over and over again until cognitive infiltration cut a groove in our ‘neurobiology of narrative framing’, and -with precision – inserted the comma, the lie; like a macaroni in a DNA chain.
    A ‘Construction’. Not a ‘re-construction’ because re-construction means it was there in the first place to build on. No. This was a ‘construction’. Different illustrative pathways to the superstates ability to control the narrative.

    • Another common point between the two story: Waxman.

      Ah, those days, how we wanted so bad to believe in ‘Waxman-Conyer’ duos; of course, we were massaged by the deep state tentacles: mega NGOs.

      You live, and you learn. You make mistakes, and then you learn from those. Meanwhile fighting so hard against being utterly jaded, disgusted … and against giving up.

      • Sibel: Sometime back in the mid 80s I had this realization which must have been building–‘I rarely have “Ah ha” moments .Realizations seem to be based on endless, often slow research. I firmly concluded that as a species in an evolutionary sense, WE ARE DONE! We have already past the point of no return. It will be nothing but an inexorable immense flow of pollution, endless wars, Fascism, increasing radioactivity, genocide–THE END! And the planet will rumble a sigh of relief.
        But then I remembered(and still do) what the French existentialist Albert Camus said. Paraphrasing: Essentially our place on earth is an Absurdity. We stare into an infinite abyss while shouting questions that are greeted with silence. We are on a cliff. Why not jump off?–since there is no hope. Camus said we should stand at the edge of Absurdity(metaphorically) and not jump! Nor should we jump to the safety of a belief system(think cult). That’s too easy. Instead, we must “act”, get involved, search, question, develop consciousness…So here we are–or I should say I am.

        • At the risk of sounding like a falsely affirming, sheep-dipped agent… I would like to say how honoured I am to be participating here with you all.

          Ron, I appreciated hearing your Camus/Existentialist angle on all this… from the ‘absurdist’ perspective there might not be HOPE, but there will always be action.

        • Ron, “Instead, we must “act”,”- … and that’s the stage I’m looking at, looking for. I think tat’s where many of us here @ BFP are currently. The next stage, the one that comes after (and with) search/research, question, and having developed consciousness. This was/is one of the reasons for getting tired and sick of so many repetitive lecture-interviews … Feeling like we have been stuck in the same point/spot, and keep making the same rounds; over and over again. I am not saying the journey is linear; not at all. Far from that. But I feel like these twirling dervishes (look it up: Konya Twirling Dervishes;-) …

          • I’m familiar with Sufism.. I ‘ve seen those guys..but a whirling dervish ,I ain’t. lol

          • Ron, check it out: YouTube, and read on its history/background. Very interesting to watch, listen to.

            For some reason when things move in circles, rather than moving linear/forward when I want them to their image (dervishes twirling) keeps popping in my head. I go go go, pound pound and pound, and somehow I feel ass if I end up in square one-where I started. Or at least it feels that way-sometimes.

          • Another way to look at it, Sibel: Each trip around the merry-go-round is another chance at the brass ring.

            A merry-go-round, with the riders seeing the same scenery go by cyclically, is a pretty amazing metaphor for different aspects of our reality. Of course physically, in that we live on a spinning planet which is making a circle around a star. The daily scenery cycle of sun and stars. The annual scenery cycle of seasons and different angles of sunlight. Give me a planet where it’s always October.

            Whenever we think we’re moving in a straight a line, our actual path in spacetime is sinusoids within sinusoids. Not one bit of straight.

            Another merry-go-round metaphor, is the circles we seem to make in our lives. The “here I am again” moments we all have. In this thread I’ve been having exactly that. Hoping, maybe this time I’ll not make myself cringe. Ah, too late.

            Never the mind. The music is still playing. The bored man who lives in a van hasn’t yet pulled the lever which stops the music and the world, so it will all come around at least one more time.

      • 344thBrother says:

        Yeah Waxman:
        I was fooled by him too in his anti-bush-war days. Now he’s just another paid apologist for Israel.

  23. Yeah. every day….’giving up’ such a funny concept in the face of what we know..but then, you suddenly get the next sparkle go off somewhere in that outrage of thinking, and that gets you through another day..another moment of it..

    • Remo,
      So very true. At least for me. Ask my husband, and he’ll tell you how many times I went through ‘That’s it. I’m disgusted, and I’m done. I can’t and won’t do this any longer!!’ Then, the spark;-)

      Interestingly, in the last two years I haven’t had that ‘that’s it; no more!’ moments. Is it because I have lowered expectations? Is it part of going gray? Is it realism or is it higher-level of conviction? I am not sure. But I am still antsy, and get uneasy with this idea of things (our things/activism) being limited to words, writing, and some talking. Sure, in personal life, with my family, I do apply those words into action-to a great degree. But still; not enough. I keep looking/searching for ways to translate more into ‘action.’

      • I’d guess u@ higher level of conviction 🙂 anyway. this is ‘for ever’. whatever I knew/thought previous; of justice/truth/light/ right X wrong – has been almost destroyed but then rebuilt by contesting 911… ‘they’ are malicious hateful and determined bastards to succeed.
        I got a bit of that in me too.
        Those I have met since day of 911 who did not turn away from it ; everyone has gone thru the same [its like a mirror.You go through it, you get cut by the glass] and may not be ‘action figures’ in Armitage type, killers etc; but passion and advocacy for truth and justice in them is equal to the opposite. Fierce. Its just superstate control the control room. And have JSOC at the door. and are not going away. The dilemma is, we, I, anyone concerned, is on our own, really, for now out here anyway..trying to catch up with the ‘darkness’…..the extent of fascist ‘badness’ being exercised by deception. The search for new ways to combat Rovian terror-scape is the challenge. Frustration is human. …expectation is bound by precedent and ego…future is unwritten so… What to do? Out there somewhere IS the next step….unseen by RAND algorithm[which is what they are looking for]…I’ll tell you this though -without fawn. Whatever and however it comes, You, Gage, Jones, Ryan, Barry Jennings, DR Griffin, DHospicker, Groves, Bollyn , Singh; The pilots, CIT, loose change…Meyssan… all the way back and everyone in that pantheon too many to remember now, have given us knowledge we can STAND on – it all adds up/we do our part. Its a big tangle. searching means looking thinking for some part not found yet…without it there is nothing except them winning and fck that.

        • Remo,

          I don’t know half the names you’ve dropped here – I certainly recognise a few of them… but I agree with your spirited statment overall. Especially from the perspective of matching their actions by being, ‘malicious, hateful and determined bastards’, ourselves.

          As you so aptly put it, ‘I got a bit of that in me too.’ Here in Australia we say, ‘ I got a little bit of c_nt in me.” Excuse me, Sibel.

          I think being prepared to get a bit dirty along the path of taking action is an important and realistic quality. As much as I might find faith in a higher power to be of solace along the way; I doubt the purely pacifist attitude of Jesus or Buddha will be of much truck here.

          At the very least, we have to be prepared to match their cunning, planning and networking (but from the ground UP).

          We could also hope that the power of our pens, our minds, these voices of dissent, sharpened critical thinking, fact checking, practising new skills of communication and rhetoric, using the internet to research and connect, activating small communities of food sharing and support, etc, >> all these will probably make ‘them’ weep.

          Then at worst, we must be prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones with our fists, and whatever else we have handy.

          S

          • Shane, AU? Where in AU?

            In 2006 & 2007 I spent a while over there- I’d say the experience ‘saved’ me (It was during the most difficult period of my life)- so, it has a very special place in my heart. I was back there in 2010, and then again, in 2013.

          • Being ‘saved’ sounds amazing… I have no doubt that landscape and environment (if that is in fact what ‘saved’ you) can have that positive effect on us humans.

            I live in Melbourne again (where I was born and raised), but I also lived for 6 years in northern NSW – Byron Bay. Beautiful land and beaches up that way. In fact my 17 year old daughter still lives there with her mum.

            I’ve travelled a bit, probably not as much as you have, but I’ve decided I wouldn’t like to live anywhere else.

          • Saved, as in physically, spiritually/mentally. The accumulation of several major shocks, stress, exhaustion … The cure was stepping out and back. Recollect, and then, pick up where I had left.

            I grew up in big, metropolitan cities: Tehran (10+ million), Istanbul (13+ Million), Baku … later NYC, DC … I never had camping experience, pure nature … And it continued after I moved to the States (1988).

            In AU, my time there, was in TAS; experiencing the most amazing kind of solitude within the most amazing natural setting, in the company of many wombats, wallabies, and yes, listening to Tassie Devils at night.

          • I know the feeling.

        • To remo February 10, 2015 at 8:29 pm

          I feel you. Looking for tunnels between rabbit holes…such a subterranean maze is difficult to map out. Maybe someday a garage genius will build a device with a view(er) which makes the ground transparent as glass, so we can see the entire ant-farm-like hidden structure. Being very metaphorical here, but I know you can follow.

          I’m not sure where, but I think I’ve recently mentioned “left field”, where the unexpected comes from, and changes everything. That’s why awareness is so crucial, and Sibel isn’t merely going in pointless circles when her journey leads to HERE and beyond. It ain’t me, and it may not be you, but somewhere out there could be is the person with a mind uncluttered by false limitations, who’ll be moved by awareness to invent those special shades which show us where “they live”.

          One thing to keep in mind in all of this, including what we’re actually supposed to be focusing on, namely dipped sheep and carrot takers, is that it’s too easy to over-intimidate ourselves. If we think of the mechanism of the sold-out state as a super-intelligent monolith with perfect sensory integrity and instant reflexes, we’re surely over intimidating ourselves, possibly in response to intentional media conditioning. Actually, it’s for the most part plodding, bureaucratic, and compartmentalized to the point of sometimes working at cross-purpose. At the lower levels it’s more apt to present a menace simply due to ineptness and dysfunction, rather than some intricately-planned conspiratorial malevolence.

          Not that there isn’t intricately-planned conspiratorial malevolence. Without a WB, all we have for seeing that is connect-the-dots.

          Example dot (thanks to Google Streetview): Why would a “USDA quarantine facility” at an East Coast airport need to have its back-road gate guarded by an armored black Suburban with blacked-out windows and you-can-guess-what-and-who inside?

          If they wanted the back road guarded to that level 24/7 they would have built a guard station. But if they only need it guarded to that level at certain times, such as when certain shipments of ?? are being moved through this cloistered facility, then the Black Suburban makes sense. There when they need it, gone when they don’t. Bad luck for them, the little Streetview car along on a day when they were on station.

          If you think this dot is part of CIA intricately-planned conspiratorial malevolence in the form of drug smuggling, that’s probably true, but…one dot can be part of more than one picture. There may be much bigger game here, just based on a lot of circumstantial I won’t hash through here.

          The only justification for even mentioning it here, is the slight hope a potential WB will see it, because of the topic.

          Can of worms closed, lid secured. Carry on…

    • 344thBrother says:

      remo. I like the way your write.
      p
      d

  24. mariotrevi says:

    I’m starting to think the US system is too far compromised to get to the bottom of many affairs though official channels…

    • John Phillips says:

      “Official channels”! To go through official channels is to play their game. We MUST play by our rules. Even go as far as to make a list of rules of personal policy that you live by.

      I’m more than dismayed when people put tons of money, time and energy trying to make changes in a world of laws, policy and red tape that stacks all the cards against them. Remember we ARE in the Matrix.
      Best Regards

      • “To go through official channels is to play their game” – Learned it the hard way. Went through all the ‘system’ channels: FBI-OPR, DOJ-IG, Senate Intel Committee, House Intel Committee, Judiciary Comm in House & Senate, Courts … When I look back … oh boy. That was one of the main reasons I wrote ‘Classified Woman.” Would people read/watch/listen and understand? Or, do they have to directly experience the ‘system’?

        The coming episode will talk about the NGOs & tons od money spent to just dance within the system, and in the end act as ‘controlled opposition.”

  25. “You live, and you learn. You make mistakes, and then you learn from those. Meanwhile fighting so hard against being utterly jaded, disgusted … and against giving up.”

    As usual, wise words from you Sibel.

    Wise, introspective words from many others here, as well. It’s obvious that many of our Irate Minority have followed the path Sibel mentioned – for quite some time. Ron, I especially liked your recent comment, because it is true that we humans seem to only gain the necessary insights to survive as a species when we are on the cusp of destroying ourselves. At least that is my truth. I believe we must always remember a very difficult notion in today’s world. There is no single Truth. There is only our own Truth. My truth will not be the same as the truth of anyone else. We are, after all, totally unique individuals, singularities, while being a part of the greater whole. Everything we are, have witnessed, participated in, has helped define our truth. But we also are so much more than we have been led to believe. We do have much in common, and if we deal with each other with the utmost RESPECT for each other’s truth, we can find a way to live together in peace. Other civilizations have found a way – for a time. Then, as history shows us, it seems to be lost and we’re forced to learn it over again – time after time. I guess, as Nature shows us if we look closely, life is a Circle.

    In India we see people greeting each other by clasping hands together in a prayerful manner, bowing slightly, and saying “Namaste’.” Often single words used in other languages have been adopted in the English language, but not without many more words of explanation. I was told the meaning of this expression and it’s worthy of repeating here. It means: I honor the place in you in which the entire Universe dwells. I honor the place in you which is of love, of truth, of light, and of peace. When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are one.

    There are many who would scoff at this as they maintain their control over others through many devious ways. Yet there are many living upon the breast of our Mother Earth who never give up their connection with all life. I’ll give you one example of an indigenous nation within the area of the Northeastern part of the US. (No, I am not one of them, though I live in the same area). They are known by many names. Their name for themselves is Haudenosaunee (The People of The Longhouse), but are also known as the Six-Nation Confederacy. The French, while here in this land, called them the Iroquois. Now you know who I am talking about, because that name is associated with many stories, most of them violent war stories of the past. Many do not know that this nation within the US is an independent democracy, perhaps the oldest on Earth. They still exist as such, and have their own passports to come and go, and have even addressed the United Nations concerning their Great Law of Peace. I take the time and space here to tell you of these people because they have continued to be who they are through some very difficult times.

    Their story is too long to relate here but suffice it to say these five, then six nations were on the brink of destroying their entire way of life in terrible wars among themselves. Just as they were on the cusp of destruction, they embraced one of their own who became known as The Peacemaker. This was over 1,000 years ago. What resulted was the Great Law of Peace – which became the foundation of their League of The Iroquois. “Without the League, the United States would not exist today, nor would our unique understanding of democracy. Concepts like one-person/ one-vote or referendum and recall were not European, they were Iroquoian.” Some of the founding father’s of the US took great stock in the visions of the Iroquoian elders. People like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The Constitution of the United States is actually based on the Great Law of Peace. While we have allowed this great set of laws to be torn down little by little, it is still worthy of our protection, I think. I did take an oath to protect and defend it (from all enemies, foreign and domestic) – 56 years ago – and that still means something to me – like the rest of you here.

    What ideas did we gain from the Iroquois? “The Iroquois refused to put power into the hands of any single person, lest that power be abused. The League sought to maximize individual freedoms and minimize governmental interference in people’s lives.The League taught that a system of government should preserve individual rights while striving to ensure the public welfare; it should reward initiative, champion tolerance, and establish inalienable human rights. They accepted as fact that men and women were equal and respected the diversity of peoples, their religions, economic and political ideals, their dreams.” (Quotes from The People of The Longhouse by W. Michael Gear and Kathleen O’Neal Gear).

    Somehow they managed to hang onto this, and their RESPECT for all life, to this day – though overwhelmed by hundreds of years of lies and cheating land grabs from the very government that used their Great Law of Peace as a building block. These folks have a strong link to the Earth and its lessons. They seek only to continue their way of life – no matter what is thrown at them. They do this from the ground up – helping each other in small communities, and in their larger community as a whole. I guess that’s where I am gong with this. We can do the same.

    I am powerless to change anyone but myself, nor do I want to force my truth onto anyone else. However, I do believe if, as Gandhi told us, we become the change we want to see, that would be a powerful place to begin. I live in a small community in a wilderness area within the great Adirondack Park in New York State. The population swells at times with visitors looking to get away from the cities. This has been a constant here – even during the great depression. It seems as if people, in dire need of rejuvenation of spirit head back to the Forests. Yet the small number of people who live here year-round are often faced with severe weather incidents, which they mitigate by helping each other get by. I see this attitude coming back in many places now, because federal aid is declining. Individuals can change, and in so doing provide inspiration for others near them, which spreads to the local community. This in turn can spread to counties, and states. It does not need leadership in the normal sense to grow. It’s from the bottom up. Its slow – but steady, and when you are among the bottom dwellers, you get some of the first benefits of this.

    There are people in other countries dealing this way. I often think that the terrible sanctions the US placed on Cuba did them more good than harm. They found other ways to do what needed to be done. They have some of the best doctors in the world and a health care system envied by many. They learned to grow their food without pesticides and use natural fertilizers. I read that half of the organic produce in Havana is grown on rooftop gardens. Again – people helping people. Contrary to what we are told, their government lets them do this. Other governments from all over the world come to review how Cuba deals with natural disasters – again, on a bottom-up basis. Impressive!

    Why not here? Why not help ourselves? We don’t need a government ok to join with our neighbors to help when its needed on a local level.

    OK, Sibel, you asked me to comment from my perspective. So – are we good? 🙂

    Thanks again for all you do. And – thanks to all who participate here and support the BFP. Sorry this was so long…and oh, yeah, Namaste’.

    • See, this is what I mean by bringing in perspectives, from various angles, and through as many lenses as possible.

      There are several important points embedded in your comment, Dennis. Each deserves its own response. For me, one of the most important one is the point on connection. The system-created environment here has overturned that needed bond/connection, replacing it with: ‘Me, me, ad me’ and life as ‘Survival of the fittest.’

      I am going to return to this topic. Maybe as a new subtopic that delves to ‘cultural’ impact. That directly relates to our macro topic: change, revolution.

      • I agree Sibel. I believe this was intentional – long term and probably a goal of the education system. A system that was not broken – but changed to encourage people to think that way – where they would look to others for their answers. I know you have this on your list to explore further. Thanks!

      • @ SIBEL, REMO, SHANE, DENNIS AND SEVERAL OTHER STRONG COMMENTERS…I’m seeing how this thread/format is now functioning at several levels: Incisive thinking, a certain listening level among us which, based on my years, is incredibly huge. We are now beginning to “see”. some things. We actually “listen.” Persons on this thread do not just simply throw their words out for ego-trip reasons( but beware that “bad boy”(ego) always lurks) .LOL
        I’d like to throw out some thing that should aid one if they confront “the enemy” which includes a level of ignorance. For, I feel that denial, ignorance, AND Apathy have been part of the “enemy’–It becomes an Occam’s Razor deal whereby X amount of further searching is no longer necessary and discussion shuts off. Easy over-simplifications begins to rule the day.
        With this dynamic in mind, I have over last 10-15 years in particular, tied up scholars to “ordinary”
        persons when they bring up Constitutional issues. I am quite familiar with the Constitution. I have about 3 copies and always have one in my briefcase when I drop by my favorite coffee house.–Importantly I do not try and memorize the document–but I do concentrate on certain areas; War powers, and all the powers given to Article 1, the Legislature , the absolute limits of of the Chief Executive(president) Article2… the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments of the Bill of rights, etc. One just whips out the US Constitution which is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND( see Article 6, clause 2, wherein it defines itself …”(the Constitution) Is the supreme Law of the Land;”)
        According to Michael Gellon in his book “NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE DOUBLE GOVERNMENT” pp.. 8,9 , PUB. 2015. “70%( OF AMERICANS) DID NOT KNOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.” IMO, Gellon”s book is an instant classic. A virtual avalanche of footnotes!
        I can guess what some of you are thinking(and I agree): ” the Constitution has been twisted, battered, avoided and ignored by the Deep State.” But when some of these Psychopaths–especially the neocons, get on a lying binge they will refer to the Constitution as proof–they go into arrogance/delight as they mumble a phrase or a clause. If I happen to be in the presence of such people–often academics–out comes the real deal and we begin our little chat. I don’t know if this helps, but it can be part of one’s arsenal.

        • Ron,
          that is interesting, but again, outside my knowledge area.

          We don’t have such a thing as the Consititution here is AUS as far as I’m aware. We are, you may remember, a country impregnated by ex-convicts and some landed gentry; all of whom learnt who to pay-off and who to kill-off, as survival dictated.

          But we do have an equivalent of the USA ‘maverick’ spirit. Here we have the rowdy and recalcitrant ‘larrikin’ – the lout bushman, the NED KELLY and his gang of Robin-Hood types, who say ‘fck the establishment’, etc. What else would you imagine from a bunch of convicts?!

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/larrikin

          This larrikin/maverick spirit has INDEED been quashed over the past generation or two. Can’t quite pin-point exactly why and how, but suffice it so say it would be an affect of the same source as those in the USA and Europe; dumbing down of education, enthusiasm for narcissist behaviour, Sibel’s ‘me-me-me’ stuff, etc. You know the drill.

          I guess this is where my hope in humanity stems from. That when squished up against the worst possible circumstance, most people will act with nobility and care towards each other. But their comfort zones require dashing inorder for this to kick in.

          You won’t get the comfortably numb to stand up and fight.

          Not here, or anywhere.

          • Shane–you might still wants to m familiarize yourself with the US Constitution. If Australia had over 300million people with a thousand military bases world -wide and thousands of nukes pointed everywhere and your military yearly budget was greater than the next 10 largest countries combined. Plus you had the most extensive spy system and you attacked weaker countries with impunity. And your leaders glibly talked about it is legal to do this according to higher Australian laws, I think I might study those very laws. ‘just sayin’

          • Good point, Ron. I’ll add it to my list of areas of interest…

        • “denial, ignorance, AND Apathy”- Agreed. We can twist the phrase, Holy Trinity, and make this trip our ‘Evil Trinity.’ ‘AID: Apathy-Ignorance & Denial. What say you, Ron?

          • I think you’ve just discovered a new syndrome: AIDS–Apathy-Ignorance & Denial Syndrome
            Of course there is:
            Pharma AIDS
            Educational AIDS
            Military AIDS
            Constitutional AIDS
            Banking AIDS

            It’s friggin epidemic…..

          • AGREED!!

  26. Agreed here too – and you just added something needed to keep us going – a little humor. Strong medicine for this AIDS.

  27. Whit the right dósis of Humor..
    There are No Bad side effects at all.
    Kind Regards
    Jens.

  28. CuChulainn says:

    it’s worth keeping in mind that there are real ongoing frauds in the community of dissent–not just Greenwald and Scahill, but characters like Gordon Duff. Folks who dwell on UFOs. Wayne Madsen writes: “It may be time to do a story on the frauds and charlatans of the intel community: They would include not only Duff but Scott Barnes, Ernie Keiser, Leo Wanta, and the unforgettable Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān, also known as “Curveball.”

    • I don’t know many of those mentioned, but you are absolutely right.

      Tomorrow, our episode, within this same subtopic, will be on NGOs & foundations.

      I’m thinking, for the episode after that, we’ll pause, and go over some excellent points/observations and questions brought by our community. And, after that, I’ll have an episode on media/alternative media within the same frame (Sheep-dipping, Controlled Opposition).

      How does that sound?

  29. Sibel- Who was the FBI undercover agent who tried to infiltrate your group? If he is employed, and his mission in life is, to destroy patriotic whistleblowers and throw monkey wrenches into the movement, then why not post his name and particulars on the internet and blow the bastard’s cover? What would be the risk of doing that?

    • It is done for those who were endangered- real gov whistleblowers. They already know.

      He is currently employed by one the biggest deep pocket NGOs. The NGO’s top-tier people already knew about that when they hired him: the director, and all the management level. A few former managers with that NGO tried to raise hell to get him kicked out. Didn’t happen.

      Finally, without the needed legal backing, I cannot publicize further details, and bear the legal cost (I did that for my whistleblowing, for the public’s right to know, and when the time came, there was no one from that public to back me with several court cases).

      That is, unless, you are willing to formally pledge and take on those risks and associated costs? Will you be willing to do that? If yes, please let me know, and I’m game;-)

  30. Just a follow up. Did that asshole threaten or is there a risk that he would threaten a libel suit or (irony of ironies) an invasion of privacy suit, even if any facts posted would be entirely true?

    • All of the above, egd. He has a law degree. He has all the resources-gov provided & foundation-provided. And his current mega NGO employee is an FBI-DOJ partner. We are talking 100s of attorneys … with this NGO.

    • Actually, you have a good point. Way back when, when I looked into liability insurance for media business I got freaked out with the associated cost (we don’t make much money here). But you are right. In fact, the NGO this person is working for currently, is in this ‘position’ where it gets potential whistleblowers’ reports, journalistic confessions … meaning, he is in a position to access those identities and the related info, and of course, pass then on to his real bosses. Does that weight in heavily ‘n my conscious? Yes. Is there a need to get this totally exposed for the public’s good? Yes. So, agreed.

  31. Sibel- Thanks very much for responding and explaining. I wish I had the resources to engage, but I see what you mean, and as you’ve already fought the noble fight, and borne the economic and other costs of it with your own case over so many years, you know what it all means. I’m just sorry all of the names of people like this could not be in the public domain so that the public would know who they are, (or that a comprehensive data base could not be compiled and published of those government officials or companies (and, at least, names of upper level executives) involved in every illegal war or violation of civil liberties in which our country is engaged).

  32. Hi Sibel (et al). Thanks for an excellent episode. Aside from everything else, let me say I really like your taste in music. Just a little thing I enjoy about your presentations.

    I understand why you don’t want to name the name of this sheep-dipped guy or his new organization. I wonder, however, completely separately and totally innocently of course, whether there is an historical record of NSWBC membership one could peruse, to see who has joined and when, and who has left and when. Is that public information? (Apart from the confidential ones of course).

  33. Also, I wonder if it would be possible to get a list of NSWBC members who have testified before Congress as part of a group that included yourself, Sibel. Would that be public information?

    I don’t know if the testimony in question was the March 2, 2005 hearing House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and Internal Relations? I don’t see the NSWBC mentioned by name there but I haven’t read every word.

    If anybody hasn’t already read Sibel’s testimony to that committee, it’s quite amazing: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg20922/html/CHRG-109hhrg20922.htm

    I like the part where you’re unable to tell them the languages you speak, or where you were born because of the gag order. The general air of disbelief and confusion is so palpable.

  34. There is a Washington Post article about the NSWBC calling on congress to take action, and it lists some of the speakers at a Capital Hill news conference on April 28, 2005. One of the people listed — I’m not saying this is related to what Sibel talks about here — is Mike German, a “former FBI agent” whose career was “put on ice.” I googled him, and I’d say he was reasonably good-looking — almost in a vaguely Anderson Cooper sort of way.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801680_pf.html

    Today he works for the Brennan Center for Justice and is described by Wikileaks as a former undercover FBI agent. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mike_German

    I’m not suggesting any kind of relevance to this discussion though. Sorry for going off topic.

  35. steven hobbs says:

    Thank you again Sibel for hosting this dialogue.

    “Will the state send its sheep-dip operatives to monitor, tell on, divide, damage, marginalize, and finally destroy and defeat viable revolutionary moments?”

    Seems rhetorical. Expenditure and talent spent on sabotage is equivalent to perceived threat to deep state. As one participant states, “closer any of us gets to the deep state mechanisms, the more likely this impediment.” Humble suggestion: Keep friends close, enemies’ closer {knowing their methods well}. Query incongruity and dissension immediately. Be careful of glib, erudite performers who are preemptively informal, jocular, or cute, or who wish to take charge. Don’t trust more than you can lose, validate trust is well placed often, and, again.

    When people’s agency is decentralized, autonomous, independently funded and guided by an everyday political praxis of common freedom and equality, it becomes difficult for state machinations to proceed unimpeded.

Speak Your Mind